body,date,page,text,path RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,78,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,77,"From: Danny Roosevelt To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: voicing support for the Jackson Park playground project Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 2:02:01 PM CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Hi Amy, I wanted to make my voice heard and let you know my family and I strongly support the proposal to build a playground at Jackson Park and we've love to see the city hire a landscape architect to product 2-3 conceptual designs to help ensure the project is successful. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help! - Danny Roosevelt (Broadway and Central Ave) -- Danny Roosevelt dannyroosevelt.com",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,76,"From: helenpak49@yahoo.com To: Amy Wooldridge Cc: KHINEOUN KONG Subject: Re: Jackson Park agenda item on Recreation and Parks Commission 9/12/19 Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 3:42:41 PM CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Hi Amy, I am unable to attend the meeting but I'd like to see the Commissioners support hiring a landscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual designs to create a beautiful functional play space at Jackson Park. Thank you! Helen & Khineoun Kong 2304 San Jose Ave Alameda, CA 510-910-0763 Sent from my iPhone On Sep 5, 2019, at 10:29 AM, Amy Wooldridge wrote: Hello Jackson Park neighbors, This is to inform you that the Recreation and Parks Commission will be discussing the option of a play area at Jackson Park on Thursday, September 12, 2019 at City Hall, Council Chambers on the third floor. It is also televised. The meeting starts at 7:00pm. The staff report and attachments are available on the city's website here. Just choose the Recreation and Parks Commission from the drop down menu and then click on the 9/12/2019 agenda. The blue hyperlinks on the agenda will take you to the staff report and attachments. Three options are being presented to the Commission for them to provide direction to staff. These options include 1) hiring a landscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual designs for a small gathering space/natural play area; 2) to leave the space as it is and not do a play area; 3) build a small natural play area/gathering space with pre-made components from a playground supplier that are natural looking components such as a climable rock or animal sculpture. All of the feedback from the neighborhood meeting is included as well as photo examples and options for a small landscape play area / gathering space.",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,75,"From: Yu-Yee Wu To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: Re: Jackson Park agenda item on Recreation and Parks Commission 9/12/19 Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 11:19:20 PM CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Hi Amy, Thank you so much for the email and update. I was at the first meeting at Jackson Park but could not stay the whole time. I ask that the Commission support options 1 or 3 to have an appropriate sized natural playground integrated into Jackson Park, ideally including a small swing structure. I believe that having a small playground for the growing number of families nearby is in line with and supportive of the population changes and growth in Alameda. A small playground will not totally change the character of the park, which spans two blocks, one block of which can stay as it is for those who don't want change to still enjoy if they don't want to be around kids. I don't see a small local playground becoming a destination point like the other bigger and fancier playgrounds, but will serve to be a delight and resource for families like mine who live nearby who would like to walk to the park with their kids and give them a playground where they can be more active. Because of its close proximity to all the restaurants and shops on Park St, it will also be a nicer place to walk to after spending time on Park St and would help kids get out more of their energy before going home. I ask that the Commission vote for a small playground in Jackson Park to support the growing number of families who live nearby now and in the future. Thank you! Yu-Yee Wu On Sep 5, 2019, at 10:29 AM, Amy Wooldridge wrote: Hello Jackson Park neighbors, This is to inform you that the Recreation and Parks Commission will be discussing the option of a play area at Jackson Park on Thursday, September 12, 2019 at City Hall, Council Chambers on the third floor. It is also televised. The meeting starts at 7:00pm. The staff report and attachments are available on the city's website here. Just choose the Recreation and Parks Commission from the drop down menu and then click on the 9/12/2019 agenda. The blue hyperlinks on the agenda will take you to the staff report and attachments. Three options are being presented to the Commission for them to provide direction to",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,74,"From: J.J. Navarro To: Amy Wooldridge Cc: Sarah Henry Subject: Re: Jackson Park agenda item on Recreation and Parks Commission 9/12/19 Date: Thursday, September 5, 2019 2:16:12 PM CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Hi Amy - Thanks for your email. I will be out of town on the 12th and unable to attend the meeting. As I've expressed in council chambers on two occasions, and during the neighborhood meeting you hosted, I am very much in favor of building a tasteful, natural-looking play structure in Jackson Park. In my view, it will go a long way to bring our community together, deter the undesirable loitering and drug activity that the park is known for, and provide a much needed play structure for nearby families. Thank you for passing along my comments to the commissioners. -J.J. Navarro J.J. Navarro jinavarro@gmail.com m. 415-515-2259 On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 10:29 AM Amy Wooldridge wrote: Hello Jackson Park neighbors, This is to inform you that the Recreation and Parks Commission will be discussing the option of a play area at Jackson Park on Thursday, September 12, 2019 at City Hall, Council Chambers on the third floor. It is also televised. The meeting starts at 7:00pm. The staff report and attachments are available on the city's website here. Just choose the Recreation and Parks Commission from the drop down menu and then click on the 9/12/2019 agenda. The blue hyperlinks on the agenda will take you to the staff report and attachments. Three options are being presented to the Commission for them to provide direction to staff. These options include 1) hiring a landscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual designs for a",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,73,"From: Kasimira Riley To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: Jackson Park Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 10:15:14 AM CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Hi Amy, I'm writing you to let you know of my support for building a small play space for children in Jackson park. I am in full support of hiring a landscape architect to create conceptual designs so we end up with a beautiful functional play space at Jackson Park. As live just a few blocks away from Jackson park and have a 8 month old who would would love to have a park and playground close by where he can be out in nature and interacting with other kids, I think the addition of a park would be a tremendous value add to the culture of the community. I think it is incredibly important to invest in the future of our community, and that is where I look to the city to take care of the best interests of our children. I hope to have your support! Kasi",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,72,"From: Ashley Lorden To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: Jackson Park playspace Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 9:57:38 AM CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. Hello, I believe you are working on the next step for the Jackson Park playspace project, getting a few design options so Recreation and Parks and the community can form a plan. I strongly support this project; as someone who lives nearby, I don't use this park nearly as much as other parks (which are farther away from me) because I worry it's not a safe place for my children. I really like the idea of constructing a play area for children that is designed to feel like a natural part of this historic park, using earth tones and organic materials wherever possible. This would help the park get a lot more use by neighborhood families, which can make it safer for everyone. Thank you for your work on this project! Ashley Lorden",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,71,"From: Claire Mathieson To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: Please Forward to Recreation and Park Commissioners for 9/12 Agenda Item 7c Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 4:09:38 PM CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Dear Commissioners, My name is Claire Mathieson, and I have been a resident of Park Avenue since 2000, when I was a student at Otis Elementary School. I love Jackson Park because it is such a free, open space; each day the park has many different kinds of visitors, and they are each able to use its blank green canvas to make it their own. When I was a child here, we did not have a playground, but we did not miss one either; we loved making up our own games. I have no significant childhood memories of playing on playgrounds; however, some of my favorite memories feature games that my friends and I invented - light stick tag, which my neighbors and I made up and played often in Jackson Park; concocting Harry Potter-esque potions from mud, grass, and leaves and using sticks as magic wands; drawing elaborate chalk obstacle courses on asphalt and spending days working through the challenges together. Jackson Park is a unique place, a park that doesn't prescribe a way for children to play but rather provides them with a perfect, natural, open space where they can bring their own imaginations together to create endless fun and enrichment in the present and wonderful memories for the future. I think creativity is one of the most wondrous traits we have, and preserving natural, distraction-free places like Jackson Park is essential to nourish creative thinking in an age when so much of what we do is fed to us through screens. Last year I participated in a creativity retreat at Spirit Rock Meditation Center in Marin, and one of the teachers raised a point that really stuck with me. We seem to have so many options now, with endless apps and gadgets at our fingertips. However, the teacher said, all of those things are part of a ""menu"" that offers us a large - but limited and prescribed - set of choices. What's most precious, most overlooked, and most worth seeking out is what's not on the menu, what we find or create for ourselves beyond the list of choices - like chalk maps and potions whose recipes only my friends and I know. For me, Jackson Park as a wide, green, some-might-say plain open space is the world beyond the menu, a world that we can make our own, a world in which children don't automatically find themselves climbing on a play structure made for them by adults but rather create a different play structure every day, every minute - one that is constantly in flux, a marvelous combination of the natural world and their own awesome imaginations. I hope that the children of this neighborhood will continue to have the same opportunities I had to use their inborn creativity to forge bonds with each other, with the natural world, and with their future selves, who - if my own experience is anything to go by -will treasure the precious memories of the time when their friends wielded lightsabers and wizards hid behind trees. Sincerely, Claire Mathieson",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,70,"From: Montgomery, Angelina To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: Re: Jackson Park Date: Thursday, September 12, 2019 9:47:58 AM Attachments: image001.png image003.png *** CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Hi Amy, I am unable to attend the meeting tonight and wanted to send my response to you directly. I have a little 2 year old and am an Alameda resident. We've owned our home in Alameda for a few years and have been renters here for years. I would like to support the city to build the play area at Jackson Park. As a new parent we're always looking for new places to take our child to play, and new ways to engage with our community. Having this new small park would be an excellent way to build community for families in Alameda, especially at Jackson Park! Thanks for your time and consideration. Angelina Montgomery, MPH Help Me Grow Prevention Manager First 5 Alameda County 1115 Atlantic Ave, Alameda, CA 94501 510-227-6943 angel.montgomery@first5alameda.org ww.First5Alameda.org FIRST5 ALAMEDA COUNTY Newsletter Alameda lorg CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information for use only by the intended recipients. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any person, other than the intended recipients is strictly prohibited and may be subject to civil action and/or penalties. If you receive this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone and delete the transmission. Thank you.",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,69,"From: Sean P. Scanlon To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: Jackson Park Playground Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 7:32:33 AM CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Hi Amy -- I am unable to attend the Recreation and Park Commission's meeting on Thursday regarding the proposed Jackson Park playground, but would like to put forward my support for the Commission to hire a landscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual designs for a small gathering space/natural play area. Thank you for all of your thoughtful attention to this potential project. Regards, Sean Scanlon 943 Park St.",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,68,"From: Jennifer Zimmermann To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: Jackson park playground Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 8:48:26 PM *** CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Hi Amy, I am a local alameda resident with a three year old. I wanted to reach out because I understand from Ron Limoges the last meeting there was opposition to the proposed park. I have been unable to attend any meetings due to work and lack of baby sitters but I fully support the need for some type of playground at Jackson park. I understand the next step should be hiring a landscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual designs so we end up with a beautiful functional play space. Please ensure this is moved forward We appreciate the work Jennifer, Jethro and Jax Zimmermann",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,67,"From: Nalani N To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: Jackson Park Playground Date: Sunday, September 8, 2019 10:36:34 PM CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Dear Amy. I'm writing because 'm hoping to see the Commissioners support hiring a landscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual designs SO we end up with a beautiful functional play space at Jackson Park. Every time l' m at Jackson Park I think it's such a pity there isn't a playground. the park has SO much unrealized potential as a public space. Thank you! Nalani Warde",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,66,"From: Kate Fayngersh To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: Jackson Park Playground Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 12:44:14 AM *** CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Hi Amy, My family and I recently purchased a home in Alameda, one block away from the beautiful Jackson Park. I am writing to you in support of the proposed playground, since I have two small children and attending support meetings in person is difficult due to the timing happening during or after bedtime. I would like to see the Commissioners' support hiring a landscape architect to create a couple of designs so we can end up with a beautiful and functional play space at Jackson Park that the entire community can agree upon. At the last meeting, the concept designs that were shared were beautiful, natural, and a tasteful size that took into account the size of the park without creating an eye sore or attracting people who would drive/park cars in the area. Such a play area would be wonderful and even those opposed recognized that something like that would be tasteful and agreeable. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can reach out to anyone else to offer support for this effort. I appreciate your help with this! Kate Fayngersh 415-902-6446",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,65,"From: Louise Van Geffen To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: Fwd: Jackson Park meeting this evening Date: Thursday, September 12, 2019 9:33:00 AM CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Dear Amy, I will be unable to attend the hearing tomorrow night, however I would like to voice my support for a Jackson Park play-space. My family and I have lived on Park Avenue in Alameda for 7 years. We always thought that Jackson Park was a picturesque looking place with a fine gazebo, but rarely had ever seen anyone put the space to any good use. To be honest, we mostly have just seen commuters waiting for buses there, teenage kids fighting after high school gets out and inebriated people passed out on the lawn. Now that we have small children and frequent other parks across the Island, it seems even more of a shame that there's no dedicated area for young kids to play in. There are even signs up that say that bike riding in the park is not allowed. I think it's reasonable to think that the entire community could benefit from encouraging more walkable options for families with young children. Many of the homes in the area lack any real back yards to play in or are suited to outdoor play. We'd like to see the Commissioners support hiring a landscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual designs for Jackson Park. We believe that we could end up with a beautiful functional play space there. I fear that many of us in our community are working parents of young children and are unable to turn up at these hearings. It's easy for us to be under represented especially given the times allotted for meetings on school nights. Jackson Park is not the center piece of private, gated community. The park deserves to be more than a publicly funded and maintained front yard for houses along Park Ave. It's supposed to be a space for all of us to share. We hope you support our neighborhood families and give us a chance to live and play closely with our neighbors. Thanks for your consideration. Louise Van Geffen",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,64,"From: Dianne Woon To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: Jackson Park play structure Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 7:46:24 PM CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. Hi, Amy, Since both me and my husband have to attend a school function for our daughter, we won't be able to attend September 12 meeting. But we would like to express that we do not support building any play structure in Jackson Park. When we moved here, our children were small and they were able to enjoy using their own creativity to play at the park. Whenever we felt that it is needed, we will take them to other close by park with play structure. I have been a stay home mom and a working mom full time as we raise our kids. Also, since the park is so close to Encinal, it is a high risk to little ones and if you put a fence around the play structure, it will completely ruin the natural decor as we have been provided by the mother nature. Last but not least, we find that any structure is a natural attractive to people to hang out especially dusk and after. Most people who support the play structure lives 1-2 blocks away from it, therefore they never have to deal with calling APD as there are people gathering when they should not already. Play structure will make it even easier, just like the bench at the end of the park, because they will have a place to rest and hang out and play. Therefore, we respectually oppose to have any play structure on Jackson Park. Instead, we respectfully request to have the sidewalks around the park to be paved so there is no tripping hazarad. Thanks, Jason & Dianne Woon 1254 Park Ave",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,63,"From: Karen Larsen To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: Jackson Park Date: Thursday, September 12, 2019 10:14:32 AM *** CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Hello Amy, I hope to be able to attend the meeting tonight and add my opposition to adding a playground Jackson Park. Before moving forward with adding a playground I think it is important to keep the commitment made many years ago to spend money on repair and upkeep. It is particularly important to have a long range plan to replace trees with finite lives. I am afraid there will eventually be a wholesale removal of trees changing the character and object of the Park. I know the funds slated for the play area do not come from the maintenance budget. All the more reason for those who have been waiting for appropriate upkeep and repair to be upset with the playground decision. I sent an email in early July to your department asking when the giant stump left after the latest tree was taken down would be removed and replaced. Since there was a sign placed by ARPD on the stump advising that this was going to happen I wanted to know when. I did not receive a reply. I was there the day an ARPD employee dropped by the Park, met a fellow, and pointed to the tree that was subsequently removed. No notice was given to anyone. On the same day the tree was removed. While the tree may have needed to be removed, it was in the same condition on that day as it had been for years. I hope you will forgive my cynicism, but I think that the tree was removed to make way for a play area about which no appropriate public input effort was undertaken. I do understand that parents want to have areas for their children to play. Jackson Park is already being used for that purpose. There just aren't play structures. In an earlier email to you I suggested that a ring of benches might be appropriate. Parents could watch the children and get to know one another. Thank you for your time and any effort you undertake to insure that money is directed appropriately. Best Regards Karen Larsen 1206 Park Avenue. Sent from my iPhone",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,62,"From: Harrison Riley To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: Jackson Park Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 10:09:04 AM CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. Hi Amy, I'd like to see the Commissioners support hiring a landscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual designs so we end up with a beautiful functional play space at Jackson Park. Thanks, Harrison",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,61,"From: Cassandra Cook To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: Jackson Park proposal Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 7:16:18 PM CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Hi Amy, My name is Cassandra Lee, a mother of two and resident of Alameda. I am writing in regards to the proposed play area for Jackson Park. I understand that there has been opposition to the park and wanted to voice my opinion and wholehearted approval ahead of the City Hall discussion. Unfortunately, due to the logistics of having two young children, it is difficult for me attend the meetings on the park proposal. When I heard that there was a possibility of a new play structure for my children, and in such close proximity to our home and children's day care facility, my family and I were beyond elated. The parks that are close by are often crowded and I know that I speak for several families when I say that a new play area would be a godsend. I am in a Facebook community for 2016 (457 members) and 2018 (541 members) mothers and we are always looking for places to bring our children. I understand that there are two options for building a new structure- preassembled or hiring an architect. Of course, I believe hiring an architect would increase the value of the park - in attendance and aesthetics, much like the grandeur of the new Sweeney Open Space. Nonetheless, I honestly would be grateful for any play structure! My specific request would be to include a structure accessible for younger children. Since I have moved to Alameda, nearly 10 years ago, the city has exploded with new life. I see more and more young families moving here and growing. I know that this park would be a gift that would keep giving to the community for generations to come. Thank you for reviewing and considering the proposal for the park, and for reading my email. Best, Cassandra The Lee Family",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,60,"From: Rachel Wilson To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: In support of a playground at Jackson Park Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 1:34:49 PM CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. Dear Ms. Wooldridge, I would like to see the Commissioners support hiring a landscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual designs so we end up with a beautiful functional play space at Jackson Park. My kids and I regularly walk and bike to the Park Street/Park Avenue area from our house on the East End. I know my kids would really enjoy a play area that makes Jackson Park feel more friendly to children. Thank you, Rachel Wilson 1205 Post St, Alameda, CA 94501",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,59,"From: bmathieson@aol.com To: Amy Wooldridge Cc: klofkorn@comcast.net; dnowi@comcast.net Subject: For Recreation and Park Commissioners -- September 12 Agenda Item 7c Date: Monday, September 9, 2019 7:29:27 AM Attachments: Compilation of opposition comments 8-22-2019.pc CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Honorable Chair and Members of the Recreation and Park Commission: I am a neighbor of Jackson Park and am looking forward to participating in your September 12, 2019, meeting. I appreciate the conclusion in the staff report that states, ""Overall, it was clear that a playground is not necessary to fulfill the requested needs but rather a small natural play area and/or gathering space for families would suffice."" I would like to provide some additional context to the request for a playground in Jackson Park. Your May 9, 2019, recommendation to the City Council that a playground be constructed in Jackson Park was based on misleading information. The two Alameda residents who spoke at your May 9 meeting live in a neighborhood a few blocks from Jackson Park. One of them had conducted an online survey to gauge interest in a playground at the park and told you that the survey respondents were all in favor of a playground. That was not true; either the compilation of the survey results was flawed, or the speaker inaccurately summarized the results. The input provided at the July 30, 2019, Community Meeting, which at least two of you kindly attended, included vast opposition to a playground by people who identified themselves as living in the immediate neighborhood of the park. In contrast, very few of the playground proponents identified where they live. Unfortunately, the sign-in sheet for the meeting included only names and e-mail addresses, with no record of where the meeting attendees live. Speakers who stated that the closest playgrounds are a mile away are mistaken. Edison School, whose large, modern toddler and big-kid play structures are accessible to the public during non-school hours, is 0.6 mile from Jackson Park and 0.4 mile (an 8-minute walk) from the Crist Street homes of many of the pro-playground speakers. Lincoln Park is 0.7 mile from their homes, and Krusi Park is 0.8 mile from their homes. Those three existing playgrounds provide ample opportunities for climbing, swinging, and sliding on conventional play structures in a fenced environment. The attached document is a compilation of comments that various Jackson Park neighbors emailed me about the proposal for a playground in the park. They provide more detail about neighborhood concerns than could be included in the compilation of input from the July 30 Community Meeting. I look forward to hearing the discussion at your meeting this Thursday. I hope that your recommendation will be compatible with Jackson Park's uniquely valuable character as a place of peaceful respite, for all Alameda children and adults, from the hectic aspects of urban life. Sincerely, Betsy (and Scott) Mathieson 1185 Park Avenue (510)523-5852",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,58,"From: Jaclyn Karnowski To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: Jackson park for kids!! Date: Thursday, September 12, 2019 9:50:06 AM CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Hello, Please note my support for a simple kids play structure at Jackson Park. I'm all for a simple climb / swing structure. Please hire an architect and let's get this thing going! I know it will reduce the drug activity in the park, it'll be a great reason to actually open and use the bathroom that exists. And, it' Il be a catalyst for improving the walkway cement that is now quite dangerous for anyone walking the path. Thanks! Jaclyn Karnowski 2422 Webb Ave. Alameda Jaclyn Karnowski Consultant | Educator 810.444.0063 I jaclyn.karnowski@gmail.com beautycounter.com/jaclynkarnowski Our mission is to get safer products in the hands of everyone.",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,57,"From: Katy Dreyfuss To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: In Support of a Play Space at Jackson Park Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:01:36 PM Attachments: ATT00001.htm sig ATT00002.htm CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Hi Amy, My name is Katy Nasitka and I am an Alameda resident who lives .4 miles from Jackson Park. My kids are 7 and 10 years old. We often bike to Park Street and to friends' houses near Jackson Park. We enjoy biking under the trees through the park's open space. We would enjoy the park even more with a play space specifically designed for young children. I hope you will consider supporting the hire of a landscape architect who would create conceptual designs for a play space at Jackson Park. Best, Katy Nasitka",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,56,"From: Scott Grieder To: Amy Wooldridge Cc: Charlise Tiee Subject: In support of a Jackson Park functional play-space Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 9:10:05 PM *** CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Hello Amy, As I will be unable to attend the hearing tomorrow night, I am writing you in support of a Jackson Park play-space. My wife and I have lived in Alameda for over 10 years on Crist St. We always thought that Jackson Park was a picturesque looking place with a fine gazebo, but rarely had ever seen anyone put the space to any good use. To be honest, we mostly have just seen commuters waiting for buses there, teenage kids fighting after high school gets out and inebriated people passed out on the lawn. Now that we have small children and frequent other parks across the Island, it seems even more of a shame that there's no dedicated area for young kids to play in. There are even signs up that say that bike riding in the park is not allowed. I think it's reasonable to think that the entire community could benefit from encouraging more walkable options for families with young children. Many of the homes in the area lack any real back yards to play in or are suited to outdoor play. We'd like to see the Commissioners support hiring a landscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual designs for Jackson Park. We believe that we could end up with a beautiful functional play space there. I fear that many of us in our community are working parents of young children and are unable to turn up at these hearings. It's easy for us to be under represented especially given the times allotted for meetings on school nights. Jackson Park is not the center piece of private, gated community. The park deserves to be more than a publicly funded and maintained front yard for houses along Park Ave. It's supposed to be a space for all of us to share. We hope you support our neighborhood families and give us a chance to live and play closely with our neighbors. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Scott Grieder 2508 Crist St",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,55,"From: Bobbie V Centurion To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: Jackson Pak Date: Thursday, September 12, 2019 1:00:41 PM CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Dear Amy, I am unable to be at the meeting, but would like to share some thoughts about play structures to be considered for Jackson Park. I am not in favor of installing any kind of play structure in Jackson Park. I have lived at the corner of Park Ave. and San Jose for almost 30 years. I raised three daughters here and we enjoyed the park a lot. I appreciate the open free-form play that I see so often in the park. Our park, the way it currently is, encourages children to use their imaginations in wonderful ways. Any group of parents, or teachers can use the park in an abundance of creative ways. I also have concerns about our beautiful trees. A friend that lives near Longfellow Park told me that they lost a one hundred year old magnolia recently., and that part of the reason was the roots of the tree were negatively impacted by the compacted soil of a play structure on top of them. Also, I am concerned that a play structure would invite more cars into the area. Parking is a constant issue for this neighborhood. I would like to see Park and Rec funding go towards replacing the dangerous paths and improved lawn maintenance which keeps the grass from growing onto the paths. Thank you for considering my ideas, and thank you for serving in public office. Sincerely, Bobbie V. Centurion 1201 Park Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 865-9945",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,54,"From: Jessica To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: Jackson park Date: Thursday, September 12, 2019 5:01:19 PM *** CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. Hi Amy, I'm unable to attend tonight's city council meeting because it conflicts with my toddler's bedtime but I am emailing to express my support for building a small natural playground at Jackson park. I was at the meeting held at the park about a month ago and wish I was able to attend this meeting. I would like to see the Commissioners support hiring a landscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual designs to help create a beautiful functional play space at Jackson Park. Thank you for considering this feedback from me and my 22 month old! Best, Jessica Sent from my iPhone",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,53,"From: Erin Zajonc To: Amy Wooldridge Subject: Support for Jackson Park Play Space Date: Thursday, September 12, 2019 2:54:32 PM CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. *** Dear Amy, I wanted to share with you my support for a play space at Jackson Park. My family loves downtown and think that a nearby play space would make it even better. Not only will it provide a space for children to run around and socialize but it will also build community and improve Jackson Park. One time, my husband went to Jackson park for my son to run around - but found it less inviting with people loitering for lack of a better word. Likewise, If there were a play space close to downtown, my family and I would eat and shop there more often because we would have a space for our son to burn off some energy before and/or after. We understand that there are fiscal considerations and therefore support the Commissioners to get conceptual designs for the potential play space. Thank you for your time, Erin Fong-Zajonc",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,52,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,51,"(21-464) Consider Adoption of Resolution Supporting the Goal of Reaching 100% Zero Emission Vehicle Sales in California by 2030. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft) Not heard. (21-465) Considering Having an Introduction and Update from the New Police Chief regarding Strategies to Address Crimes. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-466) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-467) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-468) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Not heard. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:01 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,51,"Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 4:33:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: Jackson Park playground proposal Date: Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 4:32:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Gary Cates (sent by gary cates ) To: mezzyashcraft@alameda.gov,awooldridge@alameda.gov CC: jacksonparkwatch@googlegroups.com BCC: Sarah Foltz, mary ann cates, gary cates Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Ms. Wooldridge, We purchased our home at 1250 Park Avenue in April of 1974. We raised two children here and now have two teenage grandchildren all of whom spent many hours enjoying the wonders of our beautiful Jackson park. They were allowed to use their imagination to enjoy what little green space we have in a very urban setting. The park was never intended to include a playground. This became evident when the private properties owned by the residents of Park Avenue were deeded to the City for the purpose of building what would become Alameda's first Park. For example, a fire station was once proposed for much of the space and rejected once restrictions outlined in the property transfer agreement were revealed. Because of the park's proximity to a commercial district and Alameda High School the park and those of us who share the area are often exposed to negative conditions such various types of litter, including discarded food packaging, drug paraphernalia and liquor bottles and the noise of late night partying. The addition of a playground could serve as a magnet for many unauthorized activities that would only exacerbate these problems. The park was conceived as a ""landscape promenade"" that did not incorporate concepts of play and recreation such as playgrounds and sports fields. These elements can be found in later developed parks such as Lincoln and Washington and others. The historic nature of the creation of the park and the wishes of the original grantors must be respected. We fear that we may be living in a time where the concept of respect for history is being eroded. We understand and respect those who feel that a playground would provide improvements to our park. However in light of what is stated above we must oppose this proposal. Sincerely, Mary Ann and Gary Cates 1250 Park Ave Page 1 of 1",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,50,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has an issue with the September 22nd meeting date; the date is posed for a League of California Cities conference in Sacramento and she plans to attend; noted September 14th is not a holiday; expressed support for the meeting dates being September 1st and 14th Vice Mayor Vella stated that she has a work commitment on September 14th; schedules are created far in advance due to meeting dates; inquired whether there has been an instance where Christmas has landed on a scheduled Council meeting. The City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the date is a holiday where City Hall is closed and meetings would not be scheduled. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the current September meeting dates are the 1st and the 15th The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the dates had been adopted in January; noted the proposed dates revert back to the original meeting schedule; stated a Transportation Commission meeting is scheduled for September 22nd Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her preference is to keep the dates already voted on by Council which would be September 1st and 15th Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has trouble selecting one religion to move Council meetings for; a survey should be provided through the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB); there are many different dates which are important to different religious groups; Council should not favor one religion over another; expressed support for sticking to the regular schedule of the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month; SSHRB is likely the most appropriate Board for the matter. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the matter to July 20, 2021 at 6:59 p.m. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Not heard. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Not heard. COUNCIL REFERRALS Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,50,"Lisa Klofkorn East End Zone I have lived in a house facing Jackson Park for twenty years. I do not normally have objections to adding playgrounds to existing parks, however. in regards to Jackson Park I have a few concerns. First, when this park underwent renovations in 2001, the proposed renovation included two phases. Phase one, including the restoration of the bandstand, was completed. It's my understanding that phase two, including much needed improvements to pathways, lighting, and such, was never done due to budgetary constraints. These improvements are still very much needed in this park. How can the expense of adding a playground be justified when much needed park improvements have not been implemented? Secondly, if a playground is added would a fence surrounding this playground be necessary due to safety concerns, because of the close proximity of Park Avenue on both the east and west sides of the park? If a fence is needed I have worries this may negatively impact the beauty and openness of the park. This park is very narrow by design and the space may not lend itself well to the addition of a fenced off area within its boundaries. 21 Mar Reply 6 Monique Lopez. East End Zone V No thank you 22 Mar Thank Reply 1",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,49,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated public comment has raised the issue of whether or not the contract is similar to other City staff; her understanding is that the contract is similar; requested clarification for the contract details. The Human Resources Director stated the provisions in the City Attorney's contract allow for employees to cash out vacation, up to two weeks, after being with the City for 15 years; not all employees have the provision; the provision is negotiated; vacation accruals are different based on years of service; the accruals allowed are higher than other City employees however, the amount is nothing higher than seen at other organizations. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any other City employees have the same level of vacation cash-out. The Human Resources Director responded other employees have the 80 hours of cash- out option after 15 years of service. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the employment agreement. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (21-463) Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution Nos. 15728 and 15739 Amending the 2021 Regular City Council Meeting Dates. [Continued to 7/20 at 6:59 p.m.] The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Knox White stated moving the dates back would be problematic; expressed support for the September meeting dates being the 8th and the 22nd Mayor Ezzy Aschraft requested clarification on selecting certain religious holidays to re- schedule. The City Attorney stated Council has a wide range of discretion on when to meet; should Council choose to meet, the reasons would not be due to favoring one religion over another. Councilmember Knox White stated no meetings are scheduled for December 25th which is a Christian holiday; Council can make a determination that meetings can be moved based on conflicts for a large portion of the community; expressed support for not moving the Council meeting dates back; stated that he would like the dates to be September 8th and 22nd to ensure no conflict. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,49,"Nextdoor Jackson Park Playground Survey March 2019 Examples of comments posted to this survey that were in oppositon to having a playground built in Jackson Park. "" Monica LeMaster East End Zone I'm very fond of the gorgeous trees and open green space, so I am against losing any of the trees(-ever if they're not intentionally cut, could their roots get unintentionally damaged through construction?). I personally don't think of the park as underutilized, as I've found things to do with my kids there for the last 12 years. Though in those 12 years, I've also wished for a playground from time to time, especially when I have toddler in the house: I've learned to just bring a ball and enjoy the space as is though-building - fairy houses with the sticks is another favorite activity. I'm open to hearing more about the idea though. I know there are a lot of families with young children in this neighborhood, some new and some old, and I would love to meet them at a local, public playground. Edited 22 Mar Thank Reply 6 Terri Ogden, East End Zone T I am a devoted supporter of recreation in Alameda, having worked at the parks and serving on the recreation commission. That being said, I am very much devoted to free play instead of always structuring children's play time. My aunt used to live on Park Avenue and I can remember having some awesome fun running around the park with my cousins playing for hours without the need for playground equipment. There is a lot to be said for the imagination. 22 Mar Thank Reply 4 Mimi Laubach Whale's Eye I like Jackson Park as it is. I think ARPD could do more with the park- maybe Sunday afternoon concerts in the bandstand, upgrade the pathways and add flower beds in areas. Most of our city parks have play structures already and we have few ""green"" parks where we can enjoy simple nature in Alameda. 28 Mar Thank Reply : 3",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,48,"support for the restaurant and long-term tenants are good for the City; she feels as though she does not have a choice in the matter; expressed support for an operator that is focused on golfing; stated Greenway Golf is not set up to be a restauranteur; she hopes for a golf course operator that is willing to honor working together with Jim's on the Course; expressed support for the motion; expressed concern for Greenway Golf as an operator; stated that she will be looking at Greenway Golf closely moving forward; she has heard complaints about the golf course; it is important that both parties be held to honor the original agreement as much as possible; she expects the operator to be good within the community. On the call for the questions, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. CONSENT CALENDAR (CONTINUED) (21-462) Recommendation to Approve Amended Employment Agreement for the City Attorney. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,48,"who live in my old neighborhood on and near Crist Street. Those that spoke primarily in opposition to having the playground were residents living in the immediate vicinity of the park, residents living within the 300' radius the city designates as the neighborhood needing to give approval. So, not all who spoke were from the immediate neighborhood (within the 300' radius), and many were from outside the immediate neighborhood, thus giving an inaccurate appraisal of the situation. I have printed out an updated map of Jackson Park and its surrounding residential neighborhood showing those residences opposed to having a playground built in the park. This map illustrates the overwhelming opposition this neighborhood has to the addition of a playground in Jackson Park. I addition I am including a copy of the Conceptual Master Plan of Jackson Park, drawn up twenty years ago, in hopes that the city would see fit to implement some of the improvements included in this plan, as well as seeing to much needed deferred maintenance this park sorely needs.",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,47,"will continue attempting to sell the tent; Mr. Geanekos might not be able to recoup the costs. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what will happen should the costs be able to be recovered. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded Council may request staff to draft a provision to stagger the rent recovery provision outlined in option B should Jims on the Course be able to sell back the event tent. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for a provision to stagger rent recovery. Expressed support for the third amendment; stated that he is excited to continue partnering with the City to improve the golf course; city staff, Jim's on the Course and Greenway Golf have worked hard to find a path forward that works for all parties; he and Mr. Geanekos are committed to working together in a manner which is mutually beneficial and in turn, benefits the City; having more food and beverage options at the course will bring more patrons thus increasing business for both Greenway Golf and Jim's on the Course; having expanded offerings will provide an opportunity to bring in other Alameda food vendors during tournaments; the amendment will allow Greenway Golf to bring larger tournaments to Corica Park; outlined a ranking of 12th best course provided by Golf Magazine; discussed the annual golf tournament; stated having more choices at Corica Park will enable the annual tournament to come home to the City's golf course; discussed letters of support; stated that he hopes the amendment will allow Greenway Golf to host bigger tournaments in the coming years; urged Council support the amendment: Umesh Patel, Greenway Golf. Discussed operations of locations; stated many first job opportunities are provided at Jim's; the golf course has undergone many transformations since 2006 and the only stable factor has been Jim's on the Course; prior to 2006, a food and beverage cart provided limited service to golfers only; he has since invested large sums of money to improve kitchen facilities and dining areas; the full service restaurant can serve hundreds of customers per day; the revenues paid to the City since 2006 have quadrupled to roughly $100,000 per year; Jim's has been a stable revenue stream to the City with zero City investment; Jim's has done everything in its power to fulfil contractual obligations to the City related to the events center; the City, Greenway Golf and Jim's have come to an agreement to bring closure to the matter; Jim's has agreed to relinquish a portion of the food and beverage exclusivity in exchange for contractual stability and needed rent relief; urged Council bring the chapter to a final closure, and vote for option B; discussed the event tent structure: Tom Geanekos, Jim's on the Course. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the matter; stated the Golf Commission had unanimously supported option B. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of accepting option B for both Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,47,"tennis courts. Harbor Bay Club also has 4 Pickleball courts. Can ARPD work with HBC and make an arrangement with them for the public to use their Pickleball courts in exchange for St. Joe's using public tennis courts? At Lincoln Park on March 12th at 11:30 a.m., there were 21 Pickleball players. As I was sitting there waiting for a court, I noticed that the basketball court and thought that maybe that could be an option for the rec and park to look at to build more Pickleball courts. The ground structure is already in place and may be easy to convert over to courts as 8 new basketball courts were built at Washington Park. On my way home, I drove by Krusi Park and all 3 tennis courts were empty. What about Estuary Park, where the new turf field was built. Can ARPD work with the East Bay Regional Parks and see if there is land that they can add Pickleball courts? I do not support a reservation system to use courts for the tennis and/or Pickleball for local residents. The courts are public land and should be used by the public for free as we pay property tax to the City of Alameda. This is a disadvantage to residence in Alameda who cannot ""pay to play"" the games. We need to encourage people to exercise and enjoy the outdoors. Who will be monitoring the courts to make sure people are using the reservation system correctly? I do not believe a GoFundMe or fundraisers to build Pickleball courts is ideal. Why should the citizens of Alameda, whom already pay property tax, contribute money to build Pickleball courts? We live in a community, but not everyone in the community supports Pickleball and it appears that the only people whom would contribute are the Pickleball players, which comes back to ""pay to play"" situation. You all have a tough decision to make sure everyone in the community is happy and I praise you for the long hours you put in for the community. It is not fair to put Pickleball courts in places without lights, bathrooms and drinking faucets, so the tennis community is happy. I hope you review some, or all of my suggestions, when deciding what to do with the fast growing sport of Pickleball. Helen Simpson",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,47,"I'm Lisa Klofkorn. I have lived across from Jackson Park for twenty years, and previous to that lived for ten years in the neighborhood where many of the pro- playground folks now reside. I raised my children in these two neighborhoods and I'm intimately familiar with both. A traditional playground, especially any structure that needs to be fenced in, doesn't fit into this narrow park, which was originally intended for passive recreation. Other factors that make this site a poor one for a playground include the busy streets that surround the park on all sides, the poor condition of the existing trees that may pose a hazard, and the lack of sufficient parking (as this is an extremely high density neighborhood with many multi-unit dwellings). I reviewed the video of your May 9 meeting. The social media surveys mentioned did not ask respondents for their addresses, so it would not be possible to know if the respondents were from the immediate area. The results stating that all respondents were for having a playground built in Jackson Park were inaccurate, as I and others responded to the Nextdoor survey with our opposition and concerns, but these comments were not referenced in the May 9 meeting. I'm attaching a few of these responses in the packet I'm leaving with you tonight. In Ms. Wooldridge's report on the July 30 meeting in Jackson Park, which I attended, she comments that of those who voiced opinions about half were for the playground and half were opposed. The sign-in sheet did not ask for the addresses of those in attendance. After that meeting I wrote to Ms. Wooldridge to clarify what was meant by ""neighborhood"" in reference to the city council's stipulation that the playground was ""contingent upon neighborhood approval"". She wrote back that the city generally uses the standard of 300' from any given project. At the July 30 meeting it was apparent that several of the people voicing their approval of the proposed playground were from areas outside the immediate neighborhood, including those",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,46,"its regulatory and proprietary capacities. This Third Amendment shall not be construed to limit the City's future discretion to approve, conditionally approve, or deny such uses;"" stated the language indicates Council will review items as they arise. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the language is to be included in the settlement agreement. Councilmember Daysog responded the language will be inserted as section 14. The City Attorney stated Councilmember Daysog is recommending an additional provision to the third amendment to Greenway Golf lease. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the recommended language has been discussed with Greenway Golf, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification on the claim against the City from Greenway Golf; stated that she would like to know the monetary risk to those named in the claim. The City Attorney stated the claim in a nutshell states that Greenway Golf has alleged Jim's on the Course has breached its obligations to build an event center, and that the City has been complicit in the breach with Greenway Golf and has incurred damages in the range of tens of millions of dollars. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the amount of the claim is tens of millions of dollars; inquired whether Jim's on the Course has filed a claim against the City of Alameda, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the response has confirmed that Greenway Golf has filed a claim for tens of millions of dollars against the City and Jims on the Course; noted Jims on the Course has not filed a claim against the City. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the proposed location of the referenced restaurant at the golf course. The Recreation and Parks Director responded the location has yet to be determined; stated there are a number of City requirements to be worked through on Greenway Golf's part, including Gold Commission, Planning Board and City Council. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the event center tent could be sold at a reasonable price; stated there is a rent structure which allows the $315,000 losses to be whole again; she wants to be fair however, she does not want the City to be providing financial windfall. The Recreation and Parks Director responded sale of the tent has been attempted; stated the pandemic has created additional issues; she is confident Mr. Tom Geanekos Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,46,"From: Helen Simpson [mailto:HSimpson@MPBF.com Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 2:20 PM To: ARPD Subject: [EXTERNAL] ARPD's Meeting on March 11, 2021 Dear Commissioners of Alameda Recreation and Parks Department. Thank you all for your time in working with the Pickleball community in finding a location for new Pickleball courts to be built. I watched the Zoom meeting on March 11th and found it interesting the different comments about tennis verses Pickleball. Pickleball is not for ""old, retired tennis players"" as referred to by some of the speakers. One speaker mentioned that Pickleball players could use ""masking tape"" to make our lines to play on tennis courts, which would not work because the nets are not the same size. I play Pickleball with a group of players from the ages of 25 - 75. I have never played tennis because I always felt it was a very competitive sport (and too quiet), where Pickleball is not. I am not a ""pandemic"" Pickleball player either, as some speakers identified Pickleball players to be. I feel if there were more Pickleball courts in Alameda, more people would play. There are high schools around the country that now have Pickleball teams. During the presentation, it appears there are 6 tennis courts at Washington Park and 2 wall ball courts. From some of the callers at the meeting, they made it sound like there were 4 tennis courts at Washington Park and by converting one to Pickleball, that would leave 3 tennis courts, which in fact, it would be 5 tennis courts and 2 wall ball courts. The perfect spot for Pickleball courts is Washington Park since it is in mid-town, easy access, away from homes, close to soccer field, baseball field, basketball courts, dog park and tennis courts. It should be an all-around park for all to enjoy. Also, there are lights at Washington Park so Pickleball players can enjoy playing in the evening. I heard at last night's meeting that tennis tournaments are held at Washington Park and 3 courts are used for tournaments. Lydecker and Krusi both have 3 courts, why can't they hold tournaments at those parks? Why only Washington Park? Have the people that run the tournaments contacted AUSD to use the tennis courts at Alameda High School or contacted College of Alameda? Contacted HBC? Does ARPD receive money for these tournaments? I also like the idea of courts near Hornet Field, but the only drawback is that Pickleball is played with a whiffle ball and the Hornet Field gets really windy. Also, there are no lights at Hornet Field. As it was mentioned last night in the meeting, there is a chance that the courts on the base will not be permanent, so what happens if the courts are demolished in 2 to 3 years? What about upgrading the two tennis courts by Hornet Field to tennis courts in exchange for one tennis court at Washington Park to be converted to 4 Pickleball courts? A win-win for all. It was mentioned that St. Joe's is using 3 tennis courts at Washington Park for its tennis team for practices, without being charged by ARPD. Harbor Bay Club (""HBC""), where they usually practice, is open, and has been opened for tennis, since November 2020. Why is a private school using public property for a school team? St. Joe's uses College of Alameda for all other sports, baseball, soccer, track and College of Alameda has tennis courts. It is interesting that they are not using College of Alameda's",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,46,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,45,"immediately be cut-off from a range of State funding sources; the funding applies to transportation, open space, affordable housing and homeless project money; the City relies on all the related funding which could be cut-off. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the due date, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded January 2023. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated that he would like to come back to Council in the fall with projects related to the Housing Element; the projects may be voted up or down; staff will be clear and inform Council of the projects in relation to the Housing Element; the General Plan will be coming to Council in the fall; noted the General Plan is designed to support a Housing Element however, the General Plan does not predetermine the RHNA allocation; stated the General Plan represents the coming 20 years; noted three Housing Elements will occur in the General Plan time frame; the General Plan will allow decisions for multi-family overlay and densities; by the end of the fall, staff will find out the RHNA allocation; he will continue to work with the Planning Board and the community on the multi-family overlays and will return to Council for a study session style update report on the final RHNA allocation plans; the report will come to Council between January and February providing time to continue working; Council may provide feedback and fine tuning on the plan but will not need to make a final determination. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for workshops taking place in different parts of the City with access for all and for conducting walking tours; noted the matter will return in the future. (21-460) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police to Update the Existing Alameda Police Department Policy Manual to be Current with Existing Best Practices and Statutory Requirements. Not heard. (21-461) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Third Amendment to the Greenway Golf Lease Agreement for Operation of the Corica Park Golf Complex. Introduced; and (21-461 A) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Third Amendment to the Jim's on the Course Concession Agreement for Food and Beverage Services at the Corica Park Golf Complex. The Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Daysog expressed concern for the reference to open-ended restaurants; stated Council should consider language which places parameters ensuring Council will always have the final say on restaurant numbers; expressed support for the language to state ""14. Reservation of City Rights: The additional uses potentially contemplated by this Third Amendment, including but not limited to snack shacks, take-out Food and Beverage Service facilities, new Golf Complex restaurants, and event center facilities, are each subject to future City review and approvals both in Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,45,"From: Helen Simpson [mailto:HSimpson@MPBF.com Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 5:00 PM To: ARPD@alamedaca.gov Subject: ARPD's Meeting on March 11, 2021 Dear Commissioners of Alameda Recreation and Parks Department. I have recently picked up the fastest growing sport in the United States, Pickleball. I play Pickleball at Lincoln Park on Mondays and Saturdays and I am truly enjoying the game and the people whom also play. Everyone is so friendly and it really is a social sport. Pickleball is a healthy, inexpensive outdoor sport that anyone age can play and also any ability. The rules are easy (and not too many rules) and easy to pick up. Thank you for considering converting a tennis court at Washington Park to 4 Pickleball courts. Washington Park would be a great location since it is in central Alameda. If possible, I would love to see more tennis courts, at different parks, converted to Pickleball courts. What about the old tennis court at Hornet Field? There are 23 tennis courts (including Alameda and Encinal High Schools) and four Pickleball courts. The four courts at Lincoln Park are enjoyed by many and heavily used. On Saturday afternoons, there are anywhere between 25 and 35 players wanting to play between 3:00 and 5:00. With only four courts, there is a lot of waiting around for a court to open up. Also, since there are no lights at Lincoln Park, the courts close when the sun goes down, giving limited time to play. Thank you for the opportunity to share my love of Pickleball and I truly support building more Pickleball courts in the City of Alameda. Sincerely, Helen Simpson Alameda Resident",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,45,"PARK AVENUE WEST Magnolias (E) Park Sign NOTE Cown Lown VII PARK AVENUE ERST Plenic Area Elevated Two Ther Fountein With upper of Lower Coping Sycamores () Magnolias () Pergola's With Flowering Vine Low Boxwood Hedge Single Species Bed With Seasonal Color Palms (E) Pavers Large Urns With Annual Color Circuler Bed Victorian Style Bench Single Species Beds With Seasonal Color Ornamental 42""Wroughe Iron Fence Victorian Style Trosh Receptacle Decomposed Granite Paving Interlocign Pavers Stone Seat Well Restroom in style of Gasebo Slopad Circular Rjoben Beds Drinking Fountain Pavers Victorion Style Light Peles Sycamores (E) Linden Treas (2) PARK WEST Red Oaks () AVENUE Redwoods (E) JACKSON PARK Sensonal Flowering Strubbs Around Concrets Seat ("") With Now Drining Fountain For Dags CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN City of Alameda Alameda, California February 1997 jha Londange Lave --- o 10 20 40 00 FEQT Polms (E) Low Boxwood Hedge Magnolias (E) Pargola's With Flowering Vine sightly Mounded Rib6on Bed With Sensona a/ Color Interlocion Pavers PART AVENUE EAST Ornamental 42e Wrought Iron Fence Standard Roses 'With Flowering Groundcover Dischied Accessible Victorian Stryle Gassbo",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,44,"is provided; staff anticipates a series of meetings with Council over the following nine months; the process allows staff to keep moving and informing Council; emphasized the need for smoothness at the end of the process. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Measure Z ballot measure elections results have been a resounding no; the campaign was not well-run and educating voters was not adequately performed; expressed support for an informative public process; Council decided late in the game to place the measure on the ballot; answers to public questions were not given enough of a chance; the City fell short in communicating and now has a second chance at bringing the public along; Council cannot pretend as though there is no housing crisis; Council must solve housing problems realistically; expressed support for Council providing clear direction on what to include in the returning report; questioned the matters which Council would like addressed. Councilmember Daysog stated that he will need to know the final RHNA allocation before he signs off on the Housing Element and multi-family zoning strategies; he will need to determine whether or not the allocation is fair to the island; the public and Council will need a thorough analysis regarding densities of new General Plan land use categories and the relationship to multi-family overlays; he will find it difficult to support any kind of Housing Element or zoning overlay change should there be no reduction in the RHNA allocation; the City is unique and is one of two California islands; the City cannot support any allocation near the 5,300 units; he will put out more of his thoughts between now and the returning report. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog prefers the matter not return to Council until after the November or December determination of the RHNA allocation, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Vella stated it makes sense to wait until the final RHNA allocation is provided; there are a number of questions that will need to be answered by Council; the anticipated response will not be in agreement to the appeal, and larger Council decisions will need to be made; a decision will need to be made for multi-family overlays and densities; other cities are grappling with similar matters; noted the City of Berkeley is also looking at exclusionary housing provisions and the resulting impacts; a robust conversation with the public needs to occur; the matter can be confusing and the density should be visualized; there are many high opportunity neighborhoods in Alameda; expressed support for the decision of the Housing Element being centered on Council priorities which address housing needs and equity; she will approach discussions on the topic from the lens of equity; expressed support for a Housing Element which is compliant. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the repercussions of a non-compliant Housing Element. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated should the City miss the deadline for submitting a compliant Housing Element, the City will automatically and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,44,"Full Name Zip code Email Signature Tequh Subiantor 94607 94501 Joseph Nakhur",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,44,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,43,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to hear from the City Attorney on the fiduciary obligations for Council; she agrees that an attempt at unanimity relative to the multi-family overlay is needed; expressed support for City staff providing possible approaches to the matter. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for staff providing implications of having a Housing Element which is not in compliance with State law. The City Attorney stated there is no pressing deadline due to the approval of appealing the allocation; the Housing Element does not need to be certified until the end of next year; Council has time and the matter will return with updates; one option for Council is to continue the matter and allow the Planning, Building and Transportation Director to bring back new information based on the appeal process; the new information can inform the Council discussion; recommended allowing the Planning, Building and Transportation Director to perform work with the community; Council may also take a number of other actions including making commitments about allowing multi-family overlays, prioritizing City-owned land or Council may decide not to take action; staff recommends any Council direction for litigation be brought forth in Closed Session; Council has a wide range of options with a lot of time. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when Council can anticipate an update on the appeal process. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that an update on the appeal should be available by the end of the calendar year; an e-mail follow up to Council with a more definitive date will be sent in the coming days. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the timeline for the anticipated appeals schedule; noted the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) will adopt the final RHNA plan in December. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff will approach the work as a series of steps which will play out over the next nine months; staff understands roughly 1,500 units have already been approved in projects; outlined Encinal Terminals project timeline; staff plans to be back to Council in the near future for Encinal Terminals discussion and evaluation; should Council vote to approve the project, 589 units will be added to the 1,500 already approved units; staff plans to come before Council in September for a project at Alameda Point to gain a better understanding of the allowable units for the space; by the end of the year, staff will know how many units to anticipate between Encinal Terminals, Alameda Point and others; staff will know the final RHNA allocation by the end of the year and will be able to determine the gap to fill with the multi-family overlay; staff will then be able to get into specifics with Council; noted updates on locations for multi-family overlays and densities will be provided; updates on overlays and density will be difficult to provide until the final RHNA allocation Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,43,"BO Principal tha costib 12/24 aweN and news",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,43,"Park Avenue Heritage Area September 2019 to 07 #73 179 - - #95 1201 1203 1207 1211 1213-6 1217 1227 1229-31 1286 37 1247 PARK AVENUE = TREES 2414-1 21 1333 1344 1345 47 1349 1551 1393-57 1509 1375 PARK AVENUE 1304 ISOS 1308 1314 1318 1320 1322 1334 1336-38 1340 1344 1346 1350 PARK AVENUE #66 #70 #74 ##2 IISO #95 1200 1206 1220 1222 224 1224 1252 1236 1240 1246 1250-52 1254 1258 5 S 5 2 and Residences opposed to having playground in Jackson Park (based on a partial survey) PARK",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,42,"non-compliant; it is ok for the City to end up in Court; a long-term answer to the question will result; the multi-family overlay is not a magic concept to duck State allocations; staff came up with the multi-family overlay in order to sell and ignore the Charter based on State laws and calculations; the concept had been pitched to Council and was not fought by Councilmembers; Measure A is illegal and the multi-family overlay is a way for the City to pretend the matter is being addressed; now the City must address the matter in having a multi-family overlay which is placed at well over 30 units per acre; the housing units will need to be everywhere; he does not feel comfortable being one of the Council votes to ignore the will of the voters; expressed support for Council votes being flexible and an understanding that the multi-family overlay will be more than 30 units per acre in some places; for encouraging staff to work on the matter; expressed concern for what will occur in six months' time; expressed concern for proposed units on Park Street being small and over 30 units per project and non-compliant; stated that he is ok with being non-compliant should it mean the ability to be ethically aligned with the previous question posed at the election; he will not be part of a majority which rams through multi-family overlays; the full Council needs to be the adult in the room. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the discussion can be tabled for the time being due to there being no majority vote on anything. Vice Mayor Vella stated Councilmembers are City fiduciaries; one of the biggest problems with the State of California is the previous allowing of zoning via the ballot box; the result is the current housing conundrum being faced; the majority of people that turned out to vote cast the winning ballots; the resulting decisions have shown the City of Alameda does not want to comply with regulations and will limit the ability to have local control and project-by-project decision making; Council and many jurisdictions have allowed for limiting local control through different measures; Alameda is not unique in the issues being faced; outlined uniqueness arguments from cities across the state; stated many different jurisdictions have exclusionary zoning provisions or limits on amounts of density and construction types; expressed concern for Council having conflicting obligations; she would like to hear the options for Council; noted the resolution is before Council for consideration however, a decision does not have to be made at the current meeting; it is important to have a discussion about available options; she does not want to cause or push a lawsuit to be filed against the City one way or another; the elephant in the room must be addressed; expressed concern for the legacy of zoning by the ballot box which has caused current limitations. (21-459) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a vote is needed to consider new items after 11 p.m. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing all of the remaining agenda items that can be heard before midnight. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 19 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,42,"S Full Name Zip code Email Signature MIGE COAD > 94941 mcardy@hotmail.com/ as Stron McMedica 94501 An 94(9450) danclone@yahoo.com form Tommy L 94607 Hans@gmail.com Ronnie Lee 94612 II Autmuniting 94552 PALL",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,42,"CARNEGIE INNOVATION HALL VISUALIZING CARNEGIE INNOVATION HALL JOIN US Alameda's historic Carnegie Library is being restored into Carnegie Innovation Hall: a state-of-the-art center for performance, education, technology, and community and we need you! Participate in a community workshop and explore the possibilities for this project. Be ready to jump in, meet our team and learn how you can participate in our growing community. Your presence and engagement in these ongoing workshops is essential to ensure the Carnegie Innovation Hall grows into an Alameda space that: Creates programming which radically includes our entire community Includes diverse community needs in creative and equitable ways Builds upon the assets of our community SUN ALAMEDA MAIN LIBRARY 15 SEPT 2019 STAFFORD ROOM 2PM TO 4PM 1550 OAK STREET, ALAMEDA, CA 94501",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,41,"in providing housing units which are affordable by design; expressed concern for the price of housing at Alameda Point; she does not think the pricing supports the majority of Alamedans; many people cannot write a check for one million dollars; most of the housing at Alameda Point is worth over one million dollars; Council needs to come up with a way to build housing so people can buy property and not have to pay rent for life; the problem is serious; questioned how small a unit has to be in order to bring the price point lower; outlined the pricing for smaller homes; there is a problem with smaller units having a high price tag; the City must work with a developer that can build housing to buy for a price which is significantly under one million dollars; the City is performing gentrification; outlined turn of the century housing prices; stated that she is a long-term renter in Alameda and she cannot pay one million dollars for a home; she is interested in looking at different densities; the densities must be reflected in the price point to purchase; expressed support for being flexible; stated that she would like to strike the reference to Encinal Terminals from the document; she has yet to put her name on the project and she might not do so; she is still negotiating the project and including Encinal Terminals is not appropriate; a plan has been approved without the swap; outlined project viability and costs per unit; she does not know how much revenue developers actually make on projects; a plan has been approved for Encinal Terminals, should the developer want a swap, negotiations will need to occur; any reference to Encinal Terminals in the resolution document alludes to an already Council-approved project swap. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a difference between properties which require four- affirmative Council votes and properties which require three-affirmative Council votes to approve; should the City be told by the State to build housing units at either 2,650 or 5,300, the units must be placed somewhere; the City will look elsewhere if it is not able to use the Encinal Terminals site,; the question to Council is whether or not to approve vacant City-owned land. Councilmember Knox White stated that he has not heard a broad commitment for what a multi-family overlay will look like; he understands flexibility is needed; expressed concern for moving forward with a flexible multi-family overlay; he wants to be clear in his agreement with housing comments provided by Councilmember Herrera Spencer however, the housing policies being pushed including the approval to file an appeal, are the reason why housing costs are so high; the Housing Authority is spending one million dollars per unit to build housing units; 200-square foot homes can be built in Alameda however, they will not sell for $400,000; smaller units will still be extremely expensive; new houses are never cheap; Alameda is not building new houses so the costs cannot filter down the housing costs as traditionally done; the City will continue to ensure the high cost of housing should units not be built; he is lucky to own his home in Alameda and could not afford to live in Alameda in today's rates; his goal is to try to stop the problem occurring to allow others the privilege of living in Alameda; he would like to know there is more; the voters have clearly stated the want for housing to be limited to the greatest extent possible in Alameda; voters want Council to honor the Charter; noted that he is in a difficult place should he vote to violate the Charter and ignore the community which voted; he will be honoring the voters which may cause the City to be Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,41,"Full Name Zip code Email Signature Tony Xlony 94501 my Moctor Kankara 94610 stay Joan Hu 94501 joun23hy@gmail.com Rich Hucag 94602 richkhugge that Kenny Lee 94501 Kennylee@gmailes Mammura Kohmoko 94610 KRAMOKOGMAHAOULD gmail Com John Rcsp 94701 John Koll G gmail. can an Tam Lam 94618 TanLam & smalling angy Brianmiller G Brian Miller 94602 bahworican des ken wei 94ba Kennig yana,com In Andy Lin auler Lin.Andy G yanwiton my",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,41,"CARNEGIE HOME ABOUT RESTORATION COMMUNITY USES TEAM PARTICIPATE CONTACT It INNOVATION HALL e 00 or S 9 CARNEGIE INNOVATION HALI Check our website For future meetings and join our mailing list carnegieinnovationhall.org",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,40,"The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the City needs to remain flexible; outlined a two story building having 80 units per acre with small workforce units; the units are small and affordable; noted 80 units per acre at a larger site, such as South Shore, is not necessary; 30 units at South Shore will be plenty; outlined support for projects from West Alameda Business Association; stated the unit fluctuation is a good discussion to have while planning; the appropriate number of units for Webster Street might not be appropriate for the South Shore area or Alameda Point; Council should let the community decide how many units to get out of the allocation at each project site location; noted massing diagrams will be provided in order to identify the density needed. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she shares the belief of units needing to be affordable by design which are smaller and command a lower price; a range of units are needed; expressed support for smaller units. Councilmember Daysog stated Council should lead by the type of community which fits in the built environment; Alameda has a homogenizing built environment; outlined Shoreline Avenue's design; stated a uniform density exists throughout Alameda; 30 units per acre is not an arbitrary number, the number is required and eligible by State law; it is wrong to allocate 5,300 units and a regime should not be set in place which accommodates 5,300 units; the regime should accommodate 2,650 units and he suspects the current 30 units per acre will work; should Council lean on the side of being flexible, the City will be accommodating 5,300 units; expressed concern for being flexible. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated it is premature to decide the densities; the City does not yet know the RHNA allocation due to the appeal and should not be deciding the density until the allocation is known; a year-long planning process is needed in order to make some of the recommended decisions; the one thing driving the issue is staff cannot afford to have disagreements at the end of the Housing Element process; should the State deadline be missed, penalties are immediately paid; Council must be convinced over the coming year that the City has a good plan to accommodate the RHNA allocation; Council is currently going beyond where is needed; a Housing Element will be adopted; judgement should be reserved for where and how high the densities should be until the numbers can be presented; should Council wish to set an absolute cap and constrain the process over the coming year, staff will work with the will of Council however, the action is not recommended. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she cannot imagine Council will vote to adopt a Housing Element which does not comply with State law; the penalties are steep for non- compliance. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not know the density of The Willows housing; expressed support for comparative density being shared as the process moves along; stated that she does agree with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's comments Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 17 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-07,40,"Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an upcoming agenda will contain any related matters. The City Manager responded the Police Chief is putting together a presentation for the September 21st Council meeting. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the time is now 12:00 a.m. and the meeting must be adjourned. (21-563) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard. (21-564) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard. (21-565) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard. (21-566) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember Daysog). Not heard. (21-567) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog). Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT (21-568) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:03 a.m. in memory of Beth Aney and former Councilmember Barbara Thomas. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 32",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf CityCouncil,2016-01-05,40,"APPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY--JANUARY 5, 2016--5:33 P.M. Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:37 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5. [Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 5:58 p.m.] Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (16-001) Conference with Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); City Negotiator: Elizabeth D. Warmerdam; Employee Organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW), Electric Utility Professional Association of Alameda (EUPA), Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit (PANS), and Alameda Management and Confidential Employees Association; (MCEA) Under Negotiation: Salaries and terms of employment. (16-002) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action). Not heard. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer announced that direction was given to staff. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,40,"Full Name is code Email N 1 EUNICE FURUTA 94606 Modeleine Malon 94606 Modmanone Gayle Thomas 94501 Alue myshoff 94501 dicemyahrif@gmail. cm John MEYLIN SANCHER 94601 melele9@gmail.com Dand Meyers 94501 KEVINL HERRING 94502 REVIN.HERRING etc. W Stephen Lonie 94502 slonie@ad.com S67 Stan Tang 94502 stnlytange Yahoo com sore Jessica Taal 94941 taalbem@gmail.com Ame NANCY SON GORDON 94501 Mannah Green 94501 hannah.m.green@ smale TT",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,40,"Ways you can help make this happen: Join the Volunteer to help with Fundraising Committee Community organizing Finance Committee Event planning Public Outreach Committee Administration Diversity Committee Writing Historic Restoration Committee IT and Infrastructure Educational Programming Committee Entrepreneurial Programming Committee Event Programming Committee Technology Committee Community Advisory Board Board of Directors",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,39,"expressed concern for members thinking the multi-family overlay is something specific with a set number; stated presentations have indicated the multi-family overlay can have a number of different unit sizes; he does not want staff to spin their wheels returning to Council with an unwanted recommendation; expressed support for policy direction being provided at the current and next Council meeting. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated those not supportive of the multi-family overlay zoning are for single-family residential and suburban sprawl which does not seem to be environmentally advantageous for a City concerned with sea-level rise and rising groundwater. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for multi-family overlay as currently used; stated the amount of density can never be more than 30 units per acre without factoring in Density Bonus, or 36 units per acre with Density Bonus; noted multi-family overlay does not currently allow anything bigger than the stated units; 30 units per acre is sufficient in meeting State law. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated in order to get to 5,300 units and meet the criteria outlined by Councilmember Daysog, staff will then need to spread the multi-family overlay over much larger areas of the City; there is a benefit in being flexible with the matter; noted the multi-family overlay will need to increase above 30 units per acre should the City have 5,300 unit allocation; setting a cap of 30 units per acre now sets an unintended consequence of applying the overlay to larger areas through the City; recommended Council remain flexible on the matter and let the planning process play out; stated having 30 units per acre is viable however, the citizens may want to concentrate the units in specific locations. *** (21-458) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Daysog is out of speaking time; questioned whether Councilmembers should be set back at nine minutes of speaking time; noted those that have held time will not receive an increase, the time set will be at nine minutes. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of adding five minutes of speaking time to all Councilmembers. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether Council wants to commit to adopting a Housing Element in compliance with State law with the understanding that the matter will return for fine tuning at a later date. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the potential density for multi-family overlay should the units surpass 30 per acre. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 16 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-07,39,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the matter can be brought forth at a later time; stated the consideration is a good point. Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for providing broad direction to staff to figure out whether there are alternatives for providing broader legal notices and the accompanying details. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over a potential OGC complaint. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (21-560) The City Manager announced that all three Alameda Libraries have resumed full service hours and masks are required at all times; discussed a City vaccine milestone; stated 80% of residents 12 years and older have been fully vaccinated and 92% of residents have received at least the first vaccine shot; stated drop-in vaccine clinics are available. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (21-561) Resolution No. 15814, ""Supporting the Goal of Reaching 100% Zero Emission Vehicle Sales in California by 2030."" Adopted. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she did not think the earlier motion to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. included hearing Council Referrals. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the motion from Councilmember Knox White included continuing the meeting as agendized until 12:00 a.m. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Council Referral, including adoption of related resolution. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. (21-562) Considering Having an Introduction and Update from the New Police Chief regarding Strategies to Address Crimes. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Council Referral. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 31",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf CityCouncil,2016-01-05,39,"COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 3:59 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 39 January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-15,39,"Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:32 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda Public Financing Authority June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,39,"PASR - Full Name Zip code Email Signature EDGAR LUBER 94501 Cubber Allyson Luber 94501 allysonluker@gmail.com Angell adamluber95a adam luber 94561 GMail.COM light ALASSA DOMINGO 94501 gmail.com AND IMAIL.COM Amin BROWN 94501 BROWNAMIR82 Amia Delleon HAlEy 94501 Wils Gabriela Aranda 94501 78garanda@gmail.com 8 A",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,39,"Potential Community Partners Academy of Alameda College of Alameda Alameda Architectural Preservation Society Dance10 Performing Arts Center Alameda-Based Community Theater Company Downtown Alameda Business Association Alameda Boys & Girls Club Encinal High School Alameda Civic Ballet Foodshift Alameda Community Band Frank Bette Center for the Arts Alameda Education Foundation Ginny Parsons Alameda Education Fund Girl's Inc of the Island City Greater Alameda Business Association Alameda Museum Pacific Pinball Museum Alameda Naval Air Museum Rhythmix Cultural Works Alameda Point Collaborative Saint Joseph Notre Dame High School Alameda School of Music Starland Music Alameda String Academy Studio 23 Altarena Playhouse The California Historical Radio Society Art Yowza The USS Hornet Sea, Air & Space Museum Artistic Home Studio Tomorrow Youth Repertory Boys and Girls Club of Alameda West Alameda Business Association Chamber of Commerce Yu Ying Learning (Mandarin bilingual school) We need your help to grow out this list",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-27,38,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY--JULY 27, 2010- -6:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson announced that the City Council attempted to meet in Closed Session tonight; due to the pending investigation into the official conduct of Councilmember Tam, which has been filed with the District Attorney, Councilmember Tam was asked to recuse herself from the Closed Session; Councilmember Tam refused to do so; as a result, the City Council did not meet in Closed Session, but continued the matter to a future date; the City was unable to transact its official business while the investigation is pending before the District Attorney's Office and looks to the District Attorney and Grand Jury to expedite a resolution of the investigation. (10-375) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of case: Collins V. City of Alameda (Boatworks). Not heard. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council July 27, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,38,"The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the March draft of the General Plan put recommendations forward for land use classifications; one is the shopping center land use classification referenced by Councilmember Daysog; the draft identified the types of densities and zoning necessary to get to 5,300 units; the Planning Board and a number of speakers on the draft spoke out in opposition of the plan; the speakers supported a general approach to the plan, and a decision of the necessary zoning and densities of the various land use classification areas; the decisions can be made when the Housing Element is created; staff released proposed revisions to the draft General Plan and brought the land use classifications more into sync with current conditions; staff has eliminated the language which had been recommended to the Planning Board while using the Floor Area Ration (FAR) from the existing zoning of shopping centers; staff will be providing a recommendation to Council for approval; changes can be made to the General Plan recommendation prior to being adopted in the fall; the Planning Board will be recommending the Housing Element to Council the following fall, with the necessary zoning to meet the RHNA allocation; staff has created a sequence of steps which allows Council to make decisions in a logical way. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is recommending that the second item does not commit to adopting a Housing Element which is in compliance with State law; stated there will be dire consequences for the City as a result. Councilmember Daysog responded the issue is so complex and convoluted; there are other outstanding issues such as categories and densities to come up with in the General Plan land use section and the rules which developers can rely on to build at densities sought; the level of discussion is not currently before Council; Council should be discussing the Housing Element compliance and adopting multi-family zoning separately as a standalone discussion. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a deadline for filing the RHNA appeal; the other related matters can allow for more time; questioned whether the undiscussed matters can occur at a later date. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff will be proceeding at the assumption of needing multi-family overlays as previously needed; staff is not asking Council to commit to locations or number of units; staff needs direction on definitive matters; the overall concept will return to Council in the future; staff will be bringing multi-family overlay to Council in order to adopt the Housing Element; there will be no scenario in which multi-family overlay is not adopted; staff will need one year to work through the details of the Housing Element in order to provide Council with a recommendation. Councilmember Knox White expressed concern for the staff recommendation being wishy-washy, and the recommendation from Councilmember Herrera Spencer is less clear; stated Council should not be spending time on multi-family overlays should there be no support from Council; questioned whether Council can provide staff direction; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 15 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-18,38,"Lara Weisiger City Clerk and Secretary SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency 2 to the Community Improvement Commission July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-07,38,"Councilmember Knox White stated the matter is not related to two small, hometown newspapers; the Alameda Journal is owned by a Denver hedge-fund with 100 papers and 200 other publications nationwide; the Alameda Sun is a local newspaper; expressed support for Alameda Sun; stated if Council wishes to continue running ads in the Alameda Journal, the number in the original staff report listed $46,000 and Council can commit to funding $46,000 for the Alameda Sun; he did not originally vote to move the legal notices to the Alameda Journal; however, he can support a form of keeping legal ads published in the Alameda Journal as well as providing funding for the Alameda Sun; expressed support for the proposed motion. Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern about circulation, which remains the point of legal notices; stated that she would like to see a way to expand circulation for Alameda Sun; expressed support for looking at other options relative to grants and advertising; stated her position has not changed; both newspapers are not hometown papers; the desire to provide aid to Alameda Sun is separate from the desire to provide adequate legal notices; she does not support moving legal notices to the Alameda Sun in addition to providing financial aid; expressed support for adding the options proposed by staff. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter should be bifurcated; stated that she does not support awarding the contract to the Alameda Sun and providing financial aid; questioned whether the City would eventually be the major funder of the Alameda Sun; expressed concern about the concept of the City majorly funding the newspaper. Councilmember Daysog stated the cleanest approach is to terminate the contract with Alameda Journal and award the contract to the Alameda Sun without providing additional funding to Alameda Sun; the contract provides funding; expressed support for the use of one legal notice provider; expressed support for selecting the Alameda Sun to provide legal notices. Councilmember Daysog amended his motion to approve termination of the contract with the Alameda Journal and awarding the contract to the Alameda Sun. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter relates to supporting a local newspaper; inquired whether the seconder of the motion is in agreement with the amended motion. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the amended motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. After the vote, Councilmember Knox White stated the reason for the matter is due to City Charter requirement which is outdated and does not allow Council to utilize online sources; questioned whether Council can provide direction to consider a 2022 general election ballot measure to amend the City Charter section for legal notices. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 30",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf CityCouncil,2016-01-05,38,"In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated staff is going to review Mountain View's ordinance and come back with a recommendation regarding whether or not to offer one year leases for existing tenants when there is a rent increase. (16-012) Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-5.15 regarding Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to Define and Prohibit the Commercial Cultivation of Medical Marijuana in the City of Alameda to Protect the City's Jurisdiction Regarding Cultivation, While Preserving the Opportunity to Have a Robust Discussion About Medical Marijuana Cultivation at a Later Date. [The Proposed Amendment is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alternations to Land Use Limitations.] Introduced. The Planning Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Oddie stated the ordinance prohibits cultivation; the community has not had a discussion; Assembly Bill 21 is on track to pass and be signed by the Governor; that he would prefer the ordinance not take effect if the March 1st deadline vanishes; the City could emulate Placer County, which has declared a local preemption, rather than creating a ban. The City Planner stated agriculture and horticulture are permitted by right in Alameda's residential districts, as well as industrial and commercial; the City would be in a bind if someone made a request tomorrow; Placer County is requiring use permits and has not made a decision about which districts will allow the use; noted the ordinance can be opened back up; stated that he believes the City will start receiving requests. Vice Mayor moved introduction of the ordinance; stated the matter could be opened back up when the State law is clear; now not the time for a robust discussion. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Oddie - 1. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 38 January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-15,38,"Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the EIR would provide an option for fewer housing units. Mr. Brown responded an alternative to be studied in the EIR has not been identified; stated work still needs to be done; typically, one option would be to have a lower level of development proposed; the EIR consultant and staff, along with comments from SunCal, would develop an alternative to be studied for a reasonable, smaller project. AGENDA ITEMS (10-46 CIC) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 10-167, ""Approving and Adopting the Five-Year Implementation Plan for the Business and Waterfront and the West End Community Improvement Projects (2010-2014)."" Adopted. The Economic Development Director gave a Power Point presentation. Commissioner Gilmore thanked the Economic Development Director for the presentation; stated sometimes the City gets busy pushing ahead on the next project and does not take the opportunity to look back on accomplishments; the City has changed for the better. The Economic Development Director stated policy decisions have been put in place with a lot of community input; this is the time for the City to talk about the impact that projects have had on the community; in the last couple of years, funding projects without redevelopment agency support has been difficult; the construction trade is the hardest hit unemployment group in Alameda County. Commissioner Tam stated that she would like to echo appreciation to staff; all Councilmembers throughout the State are telling their legislature that redevelopment funds are an economic engine and create jobs; inquired whether the City has a strategy for locating retail sites. The Economic Development Director responded the City has a number of different retail opportunities which are not necessarily within the redevelopment project area boundaries; stated Alameda Landing has an opportunity for up to 300,000 square feet of retail; the City has identified how much the City could handle through a saturation invoice and retail leakage analysis; the Catellus Agreement has a retail marketing plan in which Catellus has to meet quarterly with the City; Catellus needs to update the retail strategic planning analysis if it deviates from its basic retail plan; the Marina Village Shopping Center has issues; Bridgeside Shopping Center never finished leasing its property; the City needs to work on the strategic retail side. Speaker: Former Councilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda. Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Regular Meeting Alameda Public Financing Authority June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,38,"Full Name Zip code Email Signature Susan Fagel 8500 94501 Susan-fagel@yahoo.com Eldie Casti 94501 ec15155@yahoo.com all Kevin Fagel 94501 kevinf3262@gmail.com Matt Stevenson 94501 Mithours can MARSHA LAISON Marthy",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,38,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-27,37,"COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (10-397 CC) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Public Utilities Board. Mayor Johnson nominated Madeline Deaton for appointment to the Public Utilities Board. (10-398 CC) Councilmember Gilmore inquired why Council did not find out about the documentation given to the District Attorney on May 26, 2010 until six weeks later. The City Attorney responded the District Attorney's office requested that the matter be kept confidential pending their investigation; stated it was only at the insistence of the attorneys for the City and Interim City Manager, given the fact that it was necessary to hold a Closed Session regarding SunCal, that precipitated the need to make the matter public. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 37 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,37,"not wish to strip the language, a partially stripped resolution has been proposed by Christopher Buckley; noted Councilmember Herrera Spencer's resolution adds emphasis on the need to renegotiate the Navy housing cap in an attempt to eliminate the cap; stated the staff report outlines the current Navy housing cap allowance of 1,200 units; renegotiating the cap will be an attempt to get the maximum amount of units possible at Alameda Point; a variety of constraints exist at Alameda Point which will have to be worked through; removing the housing cap is a good idea from staff's perspective; there are fair housing aspects of State Housing law; placing all units at Alameda Point is not a strategy; Alameda Point does have a lot of vacant land which is underutilized; Alameda Point allows for 25% affordable housing and has a strong case for maximizing the space; staff is looking for direction and confirmation of how Council would like to lead the Housing Element process. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with removing the Navy housing cap; it does not make sense to pay a premium for adding more housing at Alameda Point however, the approach may not be the wisest; signaling the Navy by including language in the resolution may not be wise; noted there are Congress members and lobbyists that can help to ensure the negotiations are as successful and effective as possible; questioned whether the same goal can be accomplished by providing clear direction to staff to begin exploring a pursuit of lifting the Navy housing cap; stated there is likely a lot of political support for the matter. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff can accomplish the task either way; Council may provide direction to staff; a successful and quick negation is desired. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has included language in the proposed resolution related to the Navy cap; the $100,000 per unit cost creates difficulty in building affordable housing; the goal is to build affordable, workforce housing; increasing the developer costs means increasing the cost to the consumer; she included the language in order to keep supported language contained in one document; expressed support for striking the Navy cap language in her resolution; she would like an understanding of the document; the cap should be changed in order to meet the RHNA allocation should a reduction not be granted by HCD. Councilmember Daysog stated there are three items: commitment to Housing Element compliance, adopting multi-family zoning and the use of vacant City-owned land; the issue of commitment to Housing Element compliance and adopting multi-family zoning are matters in and of themselves; the General Plan is not being addressed in the matter of Land Use; an element being designated in the General Plan is called Community Mixed-Use; the Community Mixed-Use land use will have 30 to 65 units per acre; it is possible for Council to not change the zoning; there are inconsistencies between the densities expressed in the General Plan and the zoning; the General Plan land use category takes precedence; the areas are subject to Density Bonuses, and every housing project will be subject to the Density Bonus; the discussion is richer than a simple vote of the matter and a detailed discussion is needed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-18,37,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) TUESDAY-JULY 18, 2017--7:01 P.M. Mayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 2:48 a.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer - 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM (17-490 CC/17-010SACIC) Public Hearing to Consider: 1) Approving and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Consent to Partial Assignment and Assumption Agreement for the Alameda Disposition and Development Agreement for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project; and 2) Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an Operating Memorandum for the Disposition and Development Agreement Consistent with the Term Sheet. A Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project was Certified in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (State Clearinghouse #2006012091) in 2006. An Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Actions has been Prepared. Approved. The matter was heard under the Public Hearing regarding Alameda Landing on the regular City Council meeting. Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor/Chair Spencer - 1. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 2:49 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-16,37,"Mayor Spencer inquired how much time is anticipated to finish the CIP and the appropriation of funds. The Community Development Director responded the discussion would also include the program fee; she estimates one hour to one and a half hours. Mayor Spencer suggested continuing the meeting until 5:30 p.m. on March 1st, then hold the regularly scheduled meeting at 7:00 p.m. The Community Development Director stated extension of the urgency ordinance extending the moratorium would be discussed at the regular meeting. At 2:38 a.m., Mayor Spencer continued the meeting to March 1, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 35 February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-07,37,"Protection Plan (PPP) funds. Urged Council reconsider the prior vote and award the contract for the publication of legal notices to the Alameda Sun; stated the Alameda Sun is locally-owned and operated and is a vital part of the community; outlined the Alameda spelling bee, which is sponsored by the Alameda Sun; stated the Alameda Sun is engaged and active within the City in ways which go beyond other publications; the Alameda Sun provides an outlet for City government and is the most important outlet for informing Alamedans about news; urged Council find other ways to financially support the Alameda Sun: Chuck Kapelke, Alameda. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for Council immediately considering reversing the previous decision. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of terminating the contract with the Alameda Journal and awarding the contract to the Alameda Sun and inviting the Alameda Sun to obtain other sources of funding described in the three bullet points of the staff report, with a cap of no more than an additional $19,200. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not think the City should terminate the contract with the Alameda Journal; Alameda Journal has a more extensive circulation, which is important in providing legal notices; she does not want to pit one small newspaper against another; expressed concern about any punitive stance towards any newspaper; stated that she thinks the City can provide some forms of financial assistance to the Alameda Sun, including ARPA funds; outlined funding received by Alameda Sun; stated the ability to apply for the City's COVID-19 relief or Alameda Strong funds was by lottery; the City has since expended the funds and will need to find other sources; expressed support for following the first bullet listed in the alternatives to keep the contract with the Alameda Journal and provide direction on funding to assist the Alameda Sun in any of the listed forms, including the General Fund, ARPA funds, placing ads for Restaurant Week and sponsoring a City section; stated the City Attorney's office, Public Information Officer and Recreation and Parks Department all offer informational pieces; she wants to see the City assist the Alameda Sun; the question remains of the amount to provide; the contract is not price specific; an estimate is provided based on publication average of $46,000 per year; the amount is not guaranteed. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about the remaining meeting time; stated a motion is on the floor; the matter of terminating the contract with the Alameda Journal and awarding it to Alameda Sun is critical. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined that she will be moving future pulled Consent Calendar items to the end of the agenda in the future. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 29",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf CityCouncil,2016-01-05,37,"Councilmember Daysog stated that he would have liked to see something regarding mom and pop landlords and just cause eviction; however, we live in a world of compromise; focusing on Ordinance 1, Council began to flush out elements of how to move forward; he is concerned that the economics are not being dealt with seriously enough; more can be figured out over the coming weeks; at least Council is focusing on Ordinance 1. Mayor Spencer stated at least one email was received regarding changes being made to no longer allow pets. The Assistant City Attorney stated the issue has been addressed because pets are included in the definition of rent; increasing a pet fee would apply to reaching the threshold. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like the issue of changes being made to no longer allow pets to return to Council. The Assistant City Attorney stated perhaps the matter could be considered a reduction in service. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the ordinance would return, to which the City Attorney responded staff could draft the new ordinance and bring back the first reading on February 2nd. The Assistant City Attorney suggested the ordinance return at the same time as the capital improvement plan to provide the whole picture. The City Attorney inquired when the plan would be ready, to which the Community Development Director responded the second meeting in February. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the moratorium would have to be extended again. The Assistant City Attorney responded the moratorium has been extended until March. The City Attorney stated the Council could extend the moratorium again at said time to allow for a first and second reading and 30 days for the ordinance to become effective. Mayor Spencer stated that she is fine with doing so; stated staff should take the time needed; inquired whether Council agrees. After Council expressed consensus, Mayor Spencer stated a majority agrees. The Community Development Director stated staff will draft the ordinance based on the consensus direction. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 37 January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-15,37,"is not sure whether changes have occurred in the last month or so; the School District is evaluating facility needs; SunCal has provided two school sites within the plan. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated school site placement has been an issue. Mr. Brown stated the he is unaware of any location issues, but SunCal would be happy to engage in said conversation; the issue is a normal give and take process and would be part of the EIR. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether SunCal is working on a transportation plan. Mr. Brown responded transportation planning is a big part of the budget; stated SunCal is finding its own expert to advance the ball on transportation and transit issues; alternatives are being reviewed; SunCal realizes that issues need to be fully mitigated in order for a plan to be viable and approved by the City; SunCal recognizes that transportation issues cannot become worse and is willing to work with its own consultant in addition to the joint consultant retained through the EIR. Regular Meeting Alameda Public Financing Authority June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,37,"- Full Name Zip code Signature LilyLeung 94502 Jackie Cungug COT seang fly 94502 geta Barbara Besions 94502 Chanya Bartel bysic14@ad Belisped 94601 chuangsakulde Byahae lir Karis Kim 94582 canskim207@gmail.com 22 Trinity Zhang 94502 trinityzhancy@live.com B Wesley Omi 94502 Wesley so 1106e Louisa Chew buisashewe egm Welfa 94502 Marie Fung 94502 mfungusl eyahooon Marie Favor Vicki Majhor 94501 rpmremeant.com Uniki mahn Randy Friedman 94502 randy-fnedman Rob Currier 94.500 citagehotmail.com Randy Freedman Refurtar Tommy Wong 94502 oh =tom Elizabeth Becht 94501 Nancy Gordon 94501 revn)o Santh 994542 bloss@gmail.com oriko 94502 sto20200@yahoo.com off blossack lawa Sumrall 94501 msmitchrolattnet summall Laura Mitchell Sumt 94501 Mitchcoblue@attric Mondall summal 94501 L",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,37,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-27,36,"Councilmember Gilmore stated that she wants consensus to bring the matter back for a full-blown discussion. Mayor Johnson stated that she would prefer to bring the matter back rather than discussing the matter at 1:45 a.m. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is in concurrence. Councilmember Tam moved that the matter be brought back. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated past practices have been to bring legal opinions to Closed Session. Councilmember Gilmore stated this time, she found out about the existence of the opinion beforehand. Vice Mayor deHaan stated a hard copy has never been provided to Council [to keep] in the past. Mayor Johnson stated the City Attorney has followed past practices; Councilmember Gilmore wants to discuss the issue. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the intent would be to discuss the matter or provide a policy for handling confidential documents. Mayor Johnson stated the discussion and/or policy would need to be addressed when the matter is heard. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she wants the matter agendized for further discussion, and wants some sort of direction to come out of the discussion. Mayor Johnson stated the process followed by the City Attorney has been consistent with past practices. Councilmember Gilmore stated Council has not affirmed policy and direction. Mayor Johnson stated a policy is nowhere to be found if there is one. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor deHaan - 1. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 36 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-10,36,"Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Abstain. Ayes: 4. Abstention: 1. The City Clerk stated the subcommittee will draft the rebuttal; inquired whether the Council wants the subcommittee to decide who will sign the rebuttal argument, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of having the subcommittee, which has agreed to draft the rebuttal, decide who would sign the rebuttal argument. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired whether the Council decided who would draft the rebuttal, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; noted the argument in favor would be transmitted to the subcommittee after the deadline tomorrow. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Abstain. Ayes: 4. Abstention: 1. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 4 July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf CityCouncil,2018-06-05,36,"238 Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,36,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to pivot to the Planning, Building and Transportation Director and see if sense can be made of the Council direction provided. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated clarity to the City-wide prohibition related to Measure Z is to be provided in acknowledging that the City does allow multi-family housing through the overlay and Density Bonus; staff will need to not use the clarity as an argument as to why the appeal for 2,650 units will be allowed; noted State law states Density Bonus cannot be counted on for RHNA numbers; stated a developer may take advantage of the Density Bonus however, the Density Bonus cannot be counted on; staff can write the appeal to include the clear distinction. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff feels as though sufficient direction has been provided from Council, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is agreement in including the 2,650 unit allocation in the appeal. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the number. Councilmember Knox White stated that he prefers no number be included however, he will support the 2,650 units being included. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff has input on the proposed units. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff will include the units as requested and will explain the determination as recommended by Councilmember Daysog. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the changes are acceptable to Councilmember Daysog as the seconder of the motion, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative. On the call for the questions, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated there are three different resolutions on the table and all three have common denominators in supporting a Housing Element which is in compliance with State law, using multi-family housing as necessary to meet the RHNA, and maximizing the use of City land; the resolutions differ in how each characterizes between Measure A and the Charter; noted the Planning Board has stripped the language; questioned whether City Council would like to strip the language of the resolution as well; the staff resolution can be adopted should Council Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-18,36,"Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-16,36,"Vice Mayor Matarrese - 1. The Community Development Director stated the matter will be back March 1, 2016 for a second reading of the ordinance and to extend the moratorium for 22 more days until the ordinance can go into effect; staff can expand the item to include the resolution on the CIP, which does not need to be effective until the ordinance is effective. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the CIP resolution only requires one reading. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the appropriation of funds also has to be discussed. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of continuing the meeting on the CIP. The motion FAILED for lack of a second. The Interim City Manager stated that if the meeting is continued, it would not be subject to public comment. Mayor Spencer stated the second reading cannot be continued; inquired if the meeting could be continued to 6:00 p.m. on March 1st to address the CIP and the appropriation. The Community Development Director responded that the resolution and the appropriation are not required to be done at a regularly scheduled meeting so Council could start early. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated there was no public comment on the CIP or the fee. Mayor Spencer inquired whether public comment could be allowed at the continuation meeting. The Assistant City Attorney clarified if the Council wants to continue the item to a date certain or the next meeting, public comment would not be required because the matter has already come before the public at a public hearing. Mayor Spencer stated there will need to be public comment on the ordinance second reading; she would like to continue this part of the item to an hour before the March 1st regular meeting; then, have the second reading and public comment on the second reading at the regular meeting. Mayor Spencer inquired whether a time has to be picked; she inquired on how much time would be needed for the items to be able to start the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. was needed for the items to be able to start the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. The City Clerk stated there is no closed session on March 1st Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 34 February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-07,36,"Alameda Sun. The City Clerk and the Economic Development and Community Services Manager gave a brief presentation. In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Economic and Community Services Manager stated qualified businesses could have received $7,500 from one grant or another and staff evaluates the application in order to determine qualification. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether applicants were able to receive funds from either grant source or both, to which the Economic and Community Services Manager responded only one. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Alameda Sun has been able to receive funds from the State or federal government, to which the Economic and Community Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the Alameda Sun received Paycheck Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 28",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf CityCouncil,2016-01-05,36,"Councilmember Daysog stated a landlord might need to have a family member move in for medical reasons. The Assistant City Attorney stated there is an exception; extension of time does not apply to a family member moving in. Councilmember Oddie stated Council needs to decide whether or not to do a sliding scale. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the table attached to the staff report shows relocation benefits in other jurisdictions are substantially more and can contain additional charges. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would prefer to go with the staff recommendation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred. Councilmember Oddie stated that he could go either way. Mayor Spencer stated two Councilmember support the staff recommendation and two do not. Councilmember Oddie stated that he would support the staff recommendation. Mayor Spencer stated the relocation benefit would be tied to length of tenancy. Councilmember Oddie noted the reduced services petition is outstanding, but could come back. The Community Development Director stated there is a request to analyze the components of the fee; staff would continue to recommend that there be a fee to administer whatever program is adopted; a more in depth analysis can now be completed since staff understands what the program would be. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether tenants could petition for reduced services. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not inclined to support Ordinance 3 because she thought the provision would be more complicated to administer, especially in the first year; stated the matter could be considered after a year. Councilmember Oddie stated the matter should be reviewed after the capital improvement plan is addressed; landlords have indicated that they will not spend money to invest in their properties if rent increases are limited; properties will end up with broken heaters, etc.; that he would like the matter to return before one year. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 36 January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-15,36,"Mr. Brown responded that SunCal indicated that the ENA would be ending soon and that SunCal wanted to remain involved in the project. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired if the conversation included whether the Navy supports the ENA extension, to which Mr. Brown responded briefly. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Section 20-1 states that SunCal is not to meet or engage in negotiations with the Navy concerning the project or project site without giving advanced, reasonable notice to the City in order to give the City an opportunity to negotiate with SunCal and the Navy at such meeting; inquired what is Mr. Brown's interpretation of said Section. Mr. Brown responded that he concurs that the statement is the first sentence of the Section; however, the second sentence states ""notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing, developer is authorized to communicate directly with the Navy regarding the project and project site as long as the developer promptly keeps the City informed of such communications""; stated SunCal made no attempt to negotiate with the Navy without the City being present. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired how the meeting came about; further inquired whether Mr. Brown just happened to be in Washington, D.C. Mr. Brown responded in the negative; stated SunCal does a fair amount of business with the Department of Defense; originally, SunCal was talking to the Department of Defense regarding solar opportunities; SunCal has been pursuing entering into a Power Purchase Agreement to sell power to the armed services; the opportunity came to head at the meeting. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that it does not sound like a meeting was planned to follow up on Council's opportunity to meet with the Navy; inquired whether SunCal informed City staff immediately after the meeting. Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative; stated SunCal still wants to meet with senior Navy staff, Councilmembers, and City staff to negotiate terms of the Agreement; one frustration has been that SunCal desires to have communications with the Navy but the City has not been willing to schedule a joint meeting because of pro forma concerns and other issues; the situation is curious in that after a year of requesting to have a joint meeting, SunCal is considered to be in breach of the Agreement. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the path to the resolution of pro forma issues. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff has been working on the new pro forma for less than two months; stated an extensive report was attached to the June 1, 2010 staff report regarding the pro forma; staff was directed to sit down Regular Meeting Alameda Public Financing Authority June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,36,"Preserve Courts 1-6 at Fairfield Tennis Complex We, the undersigned, call on the City of Alameda and ARPD to drop the consideration to converting court 44 or any of the tennis courts at WAPA, Krusi or Leydecker park courts into pickle ball courts since the Longfetlow courts are already home to pickle ball. We request the city and ARPD look into other solutions for the pickle ball demand and we also request looking into meeting the higher demand for tennis courts that has also occurred this year. The wait times to play tennis at WAPA. Krusi, Leydecker are excessive during the weekdays after 4pm and on all weekends The existing tennis courts are not enough to meet this demand for tennis courts currently in Alameda Tennis courts currently not being used AHS. EHS. College of Alameda. Navel base courts Full name Postcode Email address Signature Alex Pryshch. epa 94501 alex33603@yahoo.com # Andrew Hom 94502 farms.new-yorka@yahoo PLA Jon Greer 94501 jgreen113@gmail.com If MagieMorom 94501 an Et lifeta the EV. 94561 Moses Dmolade 94409 KS e Jun Macbonald 94582 SEANMACDONOCOMGASTNET fm Path Dumsly 94502 Rathanasby@gmail.com Rm Pallins 94597 RideRhin @@hotmail.com in David Alle- 94501 dallanmare@gmail.com I. Zayden muse P4501 zaydon@Allernoon.com Zayden iad lee 94501 Tad-601@Yahoo.com th Ryanynny 94502 lol @gmail. 100m Ray fres Speper 94608 (or fu Published and promoted by the Alameda Happy Tennis Group at Fairfield Tennis Complex When complete, piease return to: The Alameda Happy Tennis Group at Fairfield Tennis Complex or email directly to both ARPD@alamedaca.gov and awooldridge@atamedaca.gev For more info please join our F acebock Group www Ne may conted you for the ihs - bul will - USI your ine ane suspose or share 2 entity",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,36,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-03-16,35,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) TUESDAY--MARCH 16, 2021-6:59 - P.M. Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.] Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*21-151 CC/21-06 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission (SACIC) Meeting Held on February 2, 2021. Approved. (*21- CC/21-07 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2020. Accepted. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency 1 to the Community Improvement Commission March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-27,35,"Vice Mayor deHaan noted transportation is missing. The motion carried by consensus. (10-396 CC) Discuss/Take Action on the City Attorney Policy of Not Providing Legal Opinions to Councilmembers in Advance of Meetings. Councilmember Gilmore gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired what Section 8-2 of the Charter states. The City Attorney responded the last phrase of the last sentence of Section 8-2 states ""The City Attorney shall be the legal advisor of and attorney and counsel for the City and for all officers and boards thereof in all matters relating to their official duties, and whenever requested in writing by any of them, he shall give his or her legal advice in writing""; a legal opinion was given in writing; that she advised each individual Councilmember that the legal opinion would be handed out in Closed Session which has been done many times before; that she needs to have some discretion as to how best to do her job to protect Council and the City; she made it clear that the opinion was going to be provided in Closed Session, but that any Councilmember could come to her office to read the opinion in advance; the opinion was to be collected at the end of the Closed Session as has often been done which is not a violation of the City Attorney's duties under the Charter. Councilmember Gilmore stated the opinion was particularly lengthy as well as the staff report; she went to the City Attorney's office to read the opinion within an hour before the meeting started; the lengthy opinion was hard to digest; the City Attorney's procedure assumes that she would only read the opinion once; the City Attorney made some vague comments regarding concerns with leaks coming out of Closed Session; that she has not been accused of a leak; she does not understand why she could not have a copy of the opinion to read at her leisure; that she advised the City Attorney that she had no problems with giving the opinion back; she has no interest in keeping confidential materials; the City Attorney is making it hard for her to do her job; the Charter does not state that a Councilmember needs to go to the City Attorney's office to read an opinion. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Gilmore's intent is to put the matter on an agenda for discussion, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated the matter is hard to discuss at 1:45 a.m.; that she does not think that the City Attorney has violated the terms of the Charter; perhaps Councilmember Gilmore is looking for clarification on document handling. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 35 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-16,35,"Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2021 24",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-10,35,"Council. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated signatures must be gathered by 6:00 p.m. tomorrow; inquired whether the subcommittee thought of any community signers or assumed it would be the Councilmembers. Councilmember Matarrese responded since the issue is about good government, he was hoping to have the entire Council sign the argument; stated it does not matter which side of the question you are on; Ordinance 3148 has things that are impossibly wrong to put in the Charter and require an election to fix; as State law changes, the City has to adapt. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested Laura Thomas be the fifth signer. Councilmember Matarrese suggested the argument be left in the Clerk's office for anyone to sign. The Clerk stated there is a limit of five signers. *** Mayor Spencer called a recess at 9:11 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:22 p.m. The City Clerk outlined the options to determine who will sign: defer the decision to the subcommittee; have only four Councilmembers sign; have four Councilmembers sign and one other person sign, which would require Council to decide how to select the other person. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is happy to let the subcommittee decide who they want as the fifth person or if they even want a fifth person. Councilmember Matarrese stated said suggestion is fine with him. Vice Mayor Vella stated the subcommittee's preference was to have the Council sign; she is open to hearing other Councilmember's preferences. Mayor Spencer stated Councilmember Oddie suggested having the subcommittee discuss whether or not to have a fifth person sign. Councilmember Oddie stated four Councilmembers will sign and the subcommittee can decide whether or not a fifth person would sign and who that would be. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Vella expressed support. Councilmember Oddie moved approval [of having the four Councilmembers sign and the subcommittee decide about a fifth signature]. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 3 July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf CityCouncil,2018-06-05,35,"237 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -JUNE 5, 2018- -5:00 P.M. Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:04 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella was present via teleconference from the Hilton at 10000 Beach Club Drive, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29572.] Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (18-310) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivisions (d)(2) and (e)(1) of Government Code Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action) (18-311) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code section 54956.8); Property: Northwest Territories, Alameda Point; City Negotiators: Elizabeth D. Warmerdam, Acting City Manager; and Jennifer Ott, Director of Base Reuse & Transportation Planning; Potential Tenant: East Bay Regional Park District; Issue Under Negotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms of Payment. Not heard. (18-312) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring Pursuant to Government Code § 54957; Title/description of positions to be filled: Acting City Manager and City Manager (18-313 ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action) Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that regarding Public Employee Appointment/Hiring and Initiating Legal Action, the City Council gave direction to staff by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5; and regarding Exposure to Legal Action, the City Council gave direction to staff by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: No; Councilmember Matarrese: No; Councilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Ayes. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. Special Meeting Alameda City Council June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,35,"the mainland in an earthquake should destroy Alameda's bridges and tubes; and 3) Transportation & Infrastructure: Alameda is an island with limited ingress and egress and water supply transported from pipelines on the mainland. Unlike many East Bay cities, Alameda lacks direct access to BART within their borders. Councilmember Daysog stated that his friendly amendment to ground 1 is to place a comma at the end while adding: recognizing that the City of Alameda has adopted the Density Bonus law and the multi-family housing overlay to meet State law regarding multi-family housing and RHNA obligations."" Councilmember Knox White stated Density Bonus should be omitted as it is not allowed to be used in the RHNA determinations; mentioning the matter in the appeal will only confuse things and appear like the City does not know what it is doing. Councilmember Daysog stated Density Bonus law is at the heart of modifying Measure A; the Density Bonus has two components, one of which is regulatory and allows a project to be free from Measure A, and the second is a quantitative formula; the Density Bonus allows projects to be free from Measure A. Councilmember Knox White stated Council adopted a multi-family overlay to get around the State regulations; the Density Bonus law allows the City to go above the multi-family overlay; RHNA and Housing Element law do not allow the City to use the Density Bonus to achieve RHNA numbers; the letter appealing the allocation is not going to look sincere or authoritative when including things which show that the law is not understood. Councilmember Daysog stated every time a project proponent wants to build multi- family housing project, a Density Bonus trigger must first be pulled; the part of the Density Bonus trigger being pulled speaks to getting relief from the regulatory local regimes which constrict affordable housing; the second part consists of a mathematical formula which can increase the number of units; the Density Bonus law is a critical part of the City meeting the affordable housing obligations; outlined the staff report calculation of Density Bonus law; meeting affordable housing numbers is needed at 36 units per acre; the units are already calculated. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has a couple of choices to make; Council can include everything included in the matter, or vote on an appeal which includes a reference to Density Bonus law and multi-family overlay or vote on an appeal which does not include either; Council may also choose to include the proposed unit amount. Councilmember Daysog stated it is important for Council to adopt a number to include in the appeal; the number should be 2,650; expressed support for adding the language: "" recognizing that the City has employed the State Density Bonus law into its own local ordinances as well as created a multi-family overlay, in an effort to build multi- family housing;"" the language strips reference to the RHNA aspect. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-18,35,"- 1. Mayor Spencer called a recess to hold the joint meeting at 2:48 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 2:49 a.m. The City Attorney requested Council to clarify the action taken on the Public Hearing; stated the ordinance was adopted with the amendment; the amendment language is added to the Master Plan as a condition; the ordinance adopts the Master Plan amendment but the language should be in the Master Plan itself. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of clarifying the action taken. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (17-486) The City Manager stated the results from the Registrar of Voters (ROV) verified 129.88% valid signatures on the referendum; Council's would have the choice to either rescind Ordinance No. 3180 or place the ordinance on the ballot for the voters to decide. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (17-487) Brian McGuire, Alameda, expressed concerns for the lengthy Council meetings. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (17-488) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Commission on Disability Issues, Historical Advisory Board, Planning Board and Public Art Commission. Mayor Spencer nominated Pat Lamborn and Alan Teague for appointment to the Planning Board. ADJOURNMENT (17-489) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 2:53 a.m. in memory of Florence Hoffman. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-16,35,"Councilmember Daysog clarified the motion is to exempt parcels with rental units consisting of 5 units or less from the relocation benefits requirement, have a relocation benefits assistance formula for parcels with rentals of 6 to 10 units start with ordinance adoption, and lower relocation assistance to 2 months plus $1,500 versus the 4 months plus $1,500. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the formula for 6 to 10 units. Councilmember Daysog clarified if the ordinance is adopted, a tenant who has lived in the unit for 5 years is eligible for 4 years' worth of relocation assistance which is fine for the larger apartments to absorb the costs but not for small mom and pop landlords. Councilmember Daysog's motion FAILED for lack of second. Councilmember Daysog stated the legislation before the Council is an ordinance that provides protection for only the tenants, not the mom and pop landlords; Council should move forward with the renter protection ordinance; stated in the future he would like to see a renter and small mom and pop landlord protection ordinance. The Community Development Director stated staff has two items to clarify: on page 10 the intent of Section 6-58.50C is that if the property owner does not properly notice the rent increase, that they have the ability to cure and re-notice to have the rent increase go into effect if they re-notice correctly; staff did not pick up that parallel change on page 14 under Section 6-58-75C, which would read that there would be an opportunity to cure an incorrectly noticed rent increase by allowing the landlord to re-notice; on page 12, Section 6-58.65, units exempt from Costa Hawkins and requesting a rent increase over 5%, must have increases go into effect at the effective date of the notice, after the RRAC process; language needs to be relocated to make it clear. The Assistant City Attorney stated the proposed language is moving the underlined Section 6-58.65 that says: ""Unless you and your housing provider agree, the rent increase will not go into effect until the committee reviews the rent increase."" Mayor Spencer inquired whether the change is State law. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on whether Council would introduce the ordinance and take a separate vote to adopt the resolution adopting policy concerning CIP. Mayor Spencer stated the CIP is not being discussed. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 33 February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-07,35,"can be attractive and will be a great example; it is important for the City to practice what it preaches; the City should be voluntarily conserving water; she supports the City Manager's recommendation; inquired how much input the Historic Advisory Board (HAB) should have in putting in drought-friendly landscaping; stated that she is having trouble understanding the need for input from HAB if staff is running up against a deadline to apply for funds; she understands landscaping can be part of a historic property's character; expressed concern over delays since it is a time-sensitive matter. The Public Works Director responded that she has consulted with HAB staff in the Planning, Building and Transportation Department; stated staff recommended the matter be heard by HAB; staff would like more direction on whether Council desires one or many sites to be selected; there is value in hiring a single design contractor to design multiple sites and provide the same EBMUD application; staff can move forward with the design and return to Council to appropriate funds for design; by the construction is ready to move forward, staff can return to Council by mid-year for approval of construction on all or some sites. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the proposed approach allows staff to still apply for the $15,000 per project. The Public Works Director responded staff will have to work with EBMUD partners; should staff have designs and applications in by the end of the rebate, EBMUD will likely be able to work with the City. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for more information being provided in relation to the role played by HAB in the matter; inquired whether a vote from Council is needed or whether direction to staff is sufficient. The Public Works Director responded direction to staff is sufficient; stated staff will move forward with the design for the lawn conversions; inquired whether Councilmembers are on board for the smart irrigation products as well; stated the products will include a budget amendment in order to appropriate the funding; staff will include the budget amendment at the time the matter returns to Council. The City Manager inquired whether the lawn conversions include all listed sites or only design of 2 to 3 projects. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she supports the City Hall and City Hall West lawn conversions. Councilmember Knox White expressed support for moving forward with all listed sites, including having a timeline put together; stated staff can identify the sites; the City Hall site makes sense. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether renting near a considered project site is grounds for recusal on the matter, to which the City Attorney responded in the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 27",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf CityCouncil,2016-01-05,35,"Councilmember Oddie stated that he is fine with the flat amount in order to break the tie vote. The Assistant City Attorney inquired whether tenants would have to be in the unit for one year to qualify for relocation assistance. Mayor Spencer responded in the negative; questioned why a landlord would bring in a tenant just to do a no cause or no fault eviction within the first year. Councilmember Oddie stated within the first year is usually when a landlord finds out if there are issues with the tenant. Mayor Spencer stated the benefit applies to no cause and no fault evictions. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated regardless of a tenant living there 6 months or 10 years, finding a new place to live is a hardship; uprooting a family is hard; giving time would not be a hardship; providing money could be a hardship; that he likes the idea of giving four months' notice on top of 60 days; less time can be taken; a payment for a shorter timeframe should be mediated between the tenant and landlord; a byzantine ordinance is being created; it is convoluted and complex; he would prefer a simpler more direct approach of using the current process expanded to include certain eviction deliberations and some teeth or recourse if someone is being abused by the system. Councilmember Daysog stated there should be clear relocation benefits; any jurisdiction which does relocation benefits provides clarity; expectations should be clear. Councilmember Oddie stated Council needs to pick an option. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated predictability is important; requiring relocation benefits would also dis-incentivize evictions. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Daysog stated that he can live with four months, but would prefer less; he has seen two months plus $1,500 for moving expenses in other jurisdictions; that he would prefer two or three months; the saving grace is allowing the exchange for time, but the problem is making the decision at the discretion of the renter; the landlord should be involved somehow. Councilmember Oddie stated the renter is the one who would need the time or the money since they have to find a new place to live. Councilmember Daysog stated small landlords might not be able to pay four months' rent. Councilmember Oddie stated the landlord could decide not to evict or find a cause. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 35 January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-15,35,"discussed at the meeting; SunCal requested that the Navy support the six month ENA extension. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the Deputy City Manager - Development Services' made a determination that there was a breach of the Agreement. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded that she did not make the determination, but staff and the legal team made the determination that the City was supposed to be notified and invited to attend the meeting; that she was not invited to the meeting or a subsequent negotiation session. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether or not the Washington, D.C. meeting was an outcome of the email which invited Council, the Interim City Manager and Deputy City Manager - Development Services to the meeting and reminded everyone that the subcommittee had been formed. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the meeting may have been; stated that she was never provided with a date or invited to attend. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam requested clarification on what transpired in Washington, D.C. and how communication occurred. Mr. Brown stated initially, the meeting was with the Department of Defense; that he heads SunCal's renewable energy plan; SunCal wanted to discuss opportunities to sell power to the federal government; solar power issues were discussed; negotiating was not done; the status of the ENA was discussed; that he still wants the Council subcommittee meeting to occur. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether meeting discussions were communicated to staff. Mr. Brown responded that he called the Interim City Manager the next day; stated the Interim City Manager returned his call but he and the Interim City Manager were unable to connect; that he believes that SunCal CEO Frank Faye sent a text message to the Mayor regarding the meeting; the meeting was not focused on Alameda Point; that he strongly disagrees with the breach of Agreement position; the Agreement has a specific provision that states the developer is authorized to communicate directly with the Navy regarding the project or project site as long as the developer keeps the City informed. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated Mr. Brown's phone call was after the fact; Mr. Faye advised her that he would take direction from Council and not the subcommittee. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether SunCal requested the Navy to support an ENA extension. Regular Meeting Alameda Public Financing Authority June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,35,"Preserve Courts 1-6 at Fairfield Tennis Complex We the undersagned call on the City of Alameda and ARPD to drop the consideration to converting court #4 or any of the tennio courts at WAPA Kruni or Leydecket park courts into pickle ball courts unce the Longlellow courts are atready home to piokie ball We request the city and AAPD look into other solutions for the picide ball derrand und we also requent logking into meeting the higher demand for tennis courts thut has algn occurted this year The ward times to play ternis at WAPA, Knust 1 eydecker are excessive during the after 4pm and on all weekends The existing tevinus courts are not enough to ment this demand for tennut courto currentiy in Alameda Tonnic courts currently net AIS FHS College of Alameda Navel base courts Full name Postcode Email address Signature Nathan ket 94501 Nather Kest Giacomo ratesic 94501 gjacomocratesic.com m Noah Walters 94501 noahmwalters@gmail.com brdele Erdene Zohaya 94501 Zolco.uso@gmail.com 2.30uro IREEDHI Enottuushin 94501 TREED4E@gmail.com say Mike Mar tm 94502 mmlhomeey@gmail.com vitate Kevin Kanungulk 94502 Kit. - 8c chatarill her SHE KZ WAI SLAGOL Kenzluid Yahov.com B May 1 ee 94602 maylee882@yahoo.com MS. Claia Lai 94706 cls Christia Velasquez 50312 quitinav5@gmail.com a G RICH KRINKS 94502 Rist. Rella Teshare Diluly 94618 takay Published and promoted by the Alameda Happy Tennis Group al Faurbeld Tennis Comptex When complete. péease retum to The Alarbeda Happy Group at Faurfield Complex email directly to beth ARPD@alamedaca gov For more info plesar nut Facebook Group whw year - - was result for come what",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf CityCouncil,2020-07-21,35,"Councilmember Daysog expressed support for a process which actively notices and engages the public. Vice Mayor Knox White stated direction and non-action is being asked of Council; that he does not support the current direction. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see what the proposed process yields. Councilmember Oddie expressed support for the proposed process. (20-544) Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the next item would be continued. The City Manager responded Council should decide an alternate date to continue the item; the meeting Saturday is set to be seven hours long; expressed concern for adding more time to the discussion. *** (20-545) Councilmember Vella moved approval of continuing the meeting until 12:40 a.m. Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. *** Following a brief discussion about timing, Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of continuing the special 7:02 p.m. meeting to Tuesday, July 28th at 5:00 p.m. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. *** ADJOURNMENT (20-546) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:38 a.m. in memory of Congressman John Lewis. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 13 July 21, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf CityCouncil,2005-05-17,35,"Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Daysog stated moving forward is in the best interest of the City. Commissioner deHaan requested staff to clarify whether Hair Shapers received notification. The Development Services Director stated that on March 22, all the tenants were notified that the City made a bona fide offer to the owner the City's relocation and acquisition agents provided information to all of the tenants at that time staff would ensure the tenant has all the facts. Commissioner deHaan stated that he supports the action to go forward to allow a common position to be reached. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint meeting at 8:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 5 Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,35,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-20,34,"Not heard. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Not heard. COUNCIL REFERRALS (21-510) Consider Adoption of Resolution Supporting the Goal of Reaching 100% Zero Emission Vehicle Sales in California by 2030. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft) Not heard. (21-511) Considering Having an Introduction and Update from the New Police Chief regarding Strategies to Address Crimes. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-512) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-513) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-514) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Not heard. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 27",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf CityCouncil,2021-03-16,34,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY--MARCH 16, 2021-6:00 P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:02 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.] Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (21-150) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9); Number of Cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action); Claim Number: (2021- 0009/GHC0033180) Potential Plaintiffs: Greenway Golf Associates, Inc. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2; the case involves a claim filed by Greenway contending that the lack of an events center at the Corica Park Golf Course has/will produce damages to Greenway in the range of $15 million to $50 million; the City has contended that plain wording of the contracts at the Park, both Greenway's and Jim's, do not provide for third party beneficiaries, thus Greenway has no right to assert such a claim against the City; nonetheless, in the interest of avoiding unnecessary litigation and to support a negotiated solution by Greenway and Jim's on the Course, the Council authorized the City Attorney to settle the pending claim by obtaining full releases for the City in exchange for the City's future consent of Jim's relinquishing and transferring certain food and beverage service rights at Corica Park to Greenway. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2017-11-07,34,"The City Clerk inquired whether the request is to post the standard language to allow Council to attend, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer requested that the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) be included. (17-681) Councilmember Oddie stated the Alameda Hospital has settled with one insurance company. Mayor Spencer noted another insurance still is not being accepted. (17-682) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination to the Planning Board. Mayor Spencer nominated Sylvia Gibson for appointment to the Planning Board. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 3:19 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 34 November 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-27,34,"Councilmember Gilmore stated staff should take a reasonable amount of time; that she would like to see a full blown discussion on the full range of options and include the public; she has heard options that include a public land trust which seems to be diametrically opposed to things discussed tonight; that she does not want to give specific direction to start down one path and limit options. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) and SunCal plans have had commonalities; the core is very common and could be developed; the marketplace should be reviewed. Councilmember Tam stated that her preference is to give direction on finding a funding stream and getting a project that is fundable as opposed to trying to decide the project direction. Vice Mayor deHaan stated funding streams are extremely important; developing large parcels could create funding streams; understanding the overall project is important. Councilmember Tam stated the City had a master developer, Alameda Point Community Partners, who lost financing; another developer has looked at a potential maximum build out of over 4,000 units; staff came back with negative rates of return; inquired whether Vice Mayor deHaan thinks there is some magic fundable project, to which Vice Mayor deHaan responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated Council couldn't provide specific direction tonight; options need to be reviewed; giving specific direction on component parts would be a mistake. The Interim City Manager inquired whether the direction is to include Council Referral items, but not limit the options, to which Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated staff should consider the items and come back in September or October. Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he does not see anything revolutionary in the Council Referral. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants the broadest possible point as long as the Council Referral items are included. Councilmember Gilmore stated nobody wants financial analysis; that she looks forward to staff's insight on the matter. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of incorporating everything discussed. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 34 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf CityCouncil,2019-12-18,34,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING NEDNESDAY--DECEMBEI - - 18, 2019--4:00 P.M. (19-719) The special closed session meeting was cancelled. Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council December 18, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-16,34,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (21-762) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-763) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-764) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-765) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember Daysog) Not heard. (21-766) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023- 2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard. (21-767) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Daysog) Not heard. (21-768) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Previous City Council's Priorities at a Regular City Council Meeting. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (21-769) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed an upcoming community Thanksgiving dinner at Christ Church. (21-770) Councilmember Daysog announced that he attended the 80th anniversary of the Flying Tigers at the USS Hornet. (21-771) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed a briefing on the Howard Terminal ballpark proposal; stated that she attended a ribbon cutting for the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) mobile adoption center; discussed a Veterans Day Commemoration event; announced door-to- door vaccine outreach by Alameda High School's leadership class; discussed Scouting for Food, Starbucks grand opening and Signal Coffee Roasters ribbon cutting events. ADJOURNMENT (21-772) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:00 a.m. in memory of Supervisor Wilma Chan. Respectfully submitted, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2021 23",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-10,34,"the Charter amendment came shortly after: Eric Strimling, Alameda Renters Coalition. Councilmember Oddie stated the authors did a great job. In response to Councilmember Ezzy Aschraft's inquiry regarding changing the word, Councilmember Matarrese stated the word ""fixes"" is easily understood and was chosen because it is universally understood; the ordinance needs administrative changes, which is a fix; he thinks the word should stand. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she was trying to limit the number of syllables per word and keep sentences short and concise. Councilmember Oddie moved approval [of the argument language]. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated that she should not vote on the argument since she is not going to be one of the signatories. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Abstain. Ayes: 4. Abstention: 1. The City Clerk stated the next decision is who is going to sign the argument. Vice Mayor Vella inquired why Mayor Spencer is not going to sign the argument. Mayor Spencer responded at this point, she does not plan to oppose it; she does not support this part, so she is abstaining. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether Mayor Spencer wants the ordinance in the Charter, to which Mayor Spencer responded that she has not decided; stated at this point, she does not plan to take a position; she may end up supporting putting the ordinance in the Charter; she continues to support the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC); she believes the Council did very good work on the ordinance; her concern is three Councilmembers could seriously change the work that was done. Vice Mayor Vella stated putting the ordinance in the Charter makes it harder to make minor changes; the Council has spent a tremendous amount of time trying to address the needs of the community. Mayor Spencer stated that she would be happy to consider minor changes; unfortunately, she thinks changes that are not minor will occur; there was a very long process with concessions on both sides; she thinks the City ended up with something really good; her concern is major changes could be made by three members of the Special Meeting Alameda City Council 2 July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf CityCouncil,2018-06-05,34,"Mayor Spencer stated that she does not plan on hearing her referrals as a professional courtesy to the Vice Mayor who is in a time zone three hours later; both matters would come back at the next Council meeting. (18-349) Consider Directing Staff to Prioritize Efforts to Increase Safety and Reduce Crime. Not heard. (Mayor Spencer) COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (18-350) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Civil Service Board (CSB), Commission on Disabilities (CD), Golf Commission (GC), Historical Advisory Board (HAB), Housing Authority Board of Commissioners (HABOC), Library Board (LB), Planning Board (PB), Public Utilities Board (PUB), Recreation and Parks Commission (RPC), Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) and Transportation Commission (TC). Mayor Spencer nominated Robert Barde and Marguerite Malloy for appointment to the CSB; Elizabeth Kenny and Leslie Morrison to the CD; Edward Downing to the GC; Alvin Lau to the HAB; Bachi Hadid, Sandra Kay, and Stuart Rickard to the (HABOC); Amber Bales to the LB; and Audrey Hyman and Sherice Youngblood to the SSHRB. (18-351) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement regarding a community discussion on guns; noted that everyone did well with the timing system. (18-352) Councilmember Oddie announced that he and the Mayor participated in a gun violence rally at Lincoln Middle School. (18-353) Councilmember Matarrese made an announcement regarding attending the Association of Bay Area Government general assembly. Mayor Spencer noted that she was also in attendance. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 34 June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,34,"staff time will be spent on the matter; she does not like taking frivolous actions however, she understands the need for clarity. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not support an appeal; she appreciates the uniqueness of the City being an island, however, the ""uniqueness club"" is not an exclusive one, and there are cities up and down the state arguing a different uniqueness; the reason HCD has rules put forth is due to cities not meeting obligations to provide housing; the housing crisis continues to worsen; outlined housing project delays and expenses; she would prefer Council look for solutions; HCD will not let the housing allocations slide; HCD will take the unused portion of housing allocation and place it upon another city; allocation appeals can be made from other cities onto Alameda and can cause a slippery slope; the grounds for an appeal are not strong; outlined previous arguments presented by other cities; she is surprised and disappointed in the majority support for filing an appeal. Councilmember Herrera Spencer questioned whether Councilmember Knox White included portions of the City being infilled by the San Francisco Bay and are more vulnerable to seismic events and liquefaction. Councilmember Daysog stated the appeal will be strengthened with a number included for the allocation; the last few allocations have been set at roughly 1,730 units; the new allocation is set at roughly 5,300; expressed support for splitting the difference and setting the units at 2,650 which is substantially above previous the 1,733 allocation; expressed support for the allocation appeal request being set at 2,650. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the remaining units will be sent to a named- specific city. Councilmember Daysog responded the remaining units are not his responsibility; stated the state will be responsible for finding where the remaining units will go; his responsibility is to specify a number of units which Alameda can bear; proposed a friendly amendment to the motion of setting the allocation appeal at 2,650 units. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be re-stated. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her understanding is a motion to approve filing an appeal, including the grounds proposed by Councilmember Knox White. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be clarified for the record. Councilmember Knox White stated the three grounds for the appeal are as follows: 1) 60% of voters recently upheld the voter adopted Charter provision that prohibits multifamily housing from being built. Meeting our RHNA allocation means thwarting the will of Alameda voters; 2) Alameda's uniqueness as an island in San Francisco bay, subject to sea level-rise and emergent groundwater, liquefaction and loss of access to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-05,34,"Mayor Spencer stated she toured the facility and encouraged the Center to participate in a run to benefit Midway Shelter. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:32 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 33 July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf CityCouncil,2006-12-05,34,"the Executive Director to Enter Into a New Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the FISC.' Adopted. Commissioner Daysog moved adoption of the resolution incorporating amendments made prior to the meeting. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-076B CIC) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Agreement regarding sources of repayment by and among the CIC, Palmtree Acquisition Development Corporation and FOCIL-BP, LLC documenting the sources of repayment to FOCIL pursuant to the Bayport DD. Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the Memorandum of Understanding. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 1:07 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 23 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-18,34,"together on the water taxi service; she would like Catellus to join the Citywide TMA; she will support the project. *** Mayor Spencer called a recess at 2:25 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 2:41 a.m. Mr. Marshall stated the deal will not close until the end of the year due to some due diligence items that need to be cleaned up; Catellus can commit to the maritime component. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether part of the ordinance can read: ""there will be no building permits issued for residential until the commercial component is consummated."" Mr. Marshall responded he would like the word consummated defined. Councilmember Matarrese stated consummated means purchased and guaranteed. Mr. Marshall stated there can be no guarantee after the purchase. The City Manager responded the attorneys are trying to draft language for the ordinance first reading tonight; she would like the language to be very clear before the vote at the second reading. Margo Bradish, Catellus Legal Counsel, read the language: ""No building permit for residential use in the residential subarea shall be issued until the maritime commercial land is conveyed to a developer or user for use consistent with the permitted uses authorized in the maritime commercial subarea of the maritime commercial residential variant of the Master Plan."" Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance amending the Bayport Alameda Landing Master Plan as amended. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing the City Manager to execute a Consent to Partial Assignment and Assumption Agreement (Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project) - Waterfront); and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Operating Memorandum for the Development Agreement consistent with the Term Sheet. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-16,34,"The Community Development Director listed the factors that have been called out to be considered by the RRAC. Councilmember Daysog stated a question has been raised by small mom and pop landlords about the inability to distribute costs in similar ways to larger apartments. The Community Development Director stated economies of scale would be an appropriate factor for the RRAC to consider; the property owner could state they have a limited number of units across which they could spread their costs. Councilmember Daysog inquired how costs are treated, in particular, whether the treatment of relocation costs is fixed or scalable; inquired whether Section 6-58.150 Required Payment of Relocation Fee has a scalability to it in which the RRAC can adjust accordingly. The Community Development Director responded the RRAC only deals with rent increases; stated the RRAC does not deal with the amount of relocation benefits to be paid which is a separate issue; the formula is tied to the tenants' length of tenure. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the person who provides the arbitrator would decide how much relocation benefits the tenant receives. The Community Development Director responded that the hearing officer and RRAC only deal with rent increases, not evictions and relocation benefits; stated the recommendation sets the relocation benefits which will not need to be interpreted by anyone; the amount is tied to the tenure of the tenant and spelled out in the ordinance. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether no one who would scale the relocation benefits separate from the formula that is in place in Section 6-58.150; stated what brought the City to this point has been the egregious acts of larger apartments; in the last two years, of the 40 cases that have come before the RRAC, 33 are large apartments. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of exempting rental units of 5 units or less from the relocation benefits requirements; having a relocation benefits assistance formula for 6 to 10 units, and lowering relocation assistance to 2 months plus $1,500 in moving expenses. Mayor Spencer inquired if there could be a motion contrary to the first reading. The Assistant City Attorney responded if the motion were seconded and accepted, staff would have to revise the ordinance and bring back a first reading at a subsequent meeting. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft asked for clarification from Councilmember Daysog on the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 32 February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-07,34,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the information related to savings and changes; stated that she supports the smart irrigation at $100,000, which pays for itself in a short amount of time; she has concerns over the $2.3 million budget request. Councilmember Daysog inquired the location of the 36,000 square feet of lawn being replaced at Washington Park. The Recreation and Parks Director responded the area is a smattering of smaller locations; stated the areas are landscaped areas not generally used by the public; small areas near the front by the park sign, on Central Avenue, lower Washington near the tennis courts and a mix of other decorative areas, which are mostly close to the street. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the reason Lincoln and Franklin Parks are not included in the installation of rain sensitive smart irrigation clocks is due to already having the existing technology. The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated any parks not listed for the rain sensitive clocks already have the clocks installed; staff has tried to install a couple clocks each year in various parks. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she wants to make sure any vote or discussion related to Washington Park occurs separately in order to allow for her recusal; she is happy to see the matter come forward; the City has gone through several droughts in her time as Councilmember; it is important for the City to do its part; expressed support for the City Hall proposal; stated there is an opportunity for the City to do its part and lead by example; the money is out there and the City has a lot it can do; she would like to ensure the City is taking on only things that it can handle and not over-exerting itself in order to meet the end-of-year deadline; the issue will be ongoing; she is sure funding will continue; expressed support. Councilmember Knox White inquired the reason for waiting on the matter until now; stated Council about the drought in March; the drought will be continuing; expressed support for performing significant long-term changes, such as swapping out lawns for drought tolerant gardens and for the life cycle recoup numbers; stated the City needs to save water; the earlier the City can perform the measures to do so, the better; City staff has their hands full with many matters; expressed support for a meaningful timeline and finding the funds to perform the proposed measures; stated the matter would be a good use for one-time funds; expressed support for doing as much as possible, as fast as possible without causing harm. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is in agreement with Councilmember Knox White and Vice Mayor Vella; the time is now; the matter did not come to Council sooner due to long agendas; she hopes the work put into identifying projects goes a long way in completing the EBMUD application; the City needs to do all it can; expressed support for the City Hall lawn conversion to drought friendly landscaping; stated the landscaping Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 26",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf CityCouncil,2016-01-05,34,"the landlord about whether to provide time versus money or a combination. Councilmember Daysog stated that his suggestion is an exemption. Mayor Spencer inquired where the Council is on length of tenancy. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she likes what the ordinance says. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he is afraid that tying the benefit to length of tenancy will encourage landlords to get rid of tenants sooner. Mayor Spencer concurred. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the suggestion is to have a flat amount for everybody, to which Mayor Spencer responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the amount of time would be four months, to which Mayor Spencer responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 34 January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-15,34,"The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that she would apply the formula specified in the draft Navy term sheet to the project to see what the land payment would be. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the base project is the Measure A compliant plan and whether the density bonus option is higher; further inquired whether the two ranges would be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded project alternatives have not been analyzed, but staff is close to finalizing a project description; stated the project description includes the base project and density bonus option; staff is studying two build-out scenarios. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated one hybrid project is being analyzed; inquired whether the base project and hybrid project would be analyzed when the Navy term sheet is developed in accordance with the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA). The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff has not started negotiations on the modified OEA; stated staff has significant concerns with the project pro forma, and does not want to enter into land payment negotiations with the Navy; that she assumes that final term sheet negotiations would be based upon the density bonus option project because SunCal wants to build said project. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she recalls receiving an email inviting Council, the Interim City Manager, and the Deputy City Manager - Development Services to some type of outreach with the Navy; subsequently, the Interim City Manager sent an email reminding Council that a Council subcommittee was formed; inquired whether the subcommittee ever met with the Navy and the Pentagon is unclear; inquired whether the staff report asserts that SunCal may be in breach of the Agreement because of what may have been a meeting with the Department of Defense that included the Navy. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated that she was on a conference call with SunCal in which SunCal notified both the City and Navy that they would like to set up a meeting with the Department of the Navy in Washington, D.C.; that she and the Base Realignment and Closures (BRAC) Office in San Diego requested to be invited; several times, the BRAC Office asked when the meeting might occur; she and the BRAC Office were never notified. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the Deputy City Manager - Development Services knows what the meeting was about. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the BRAC Office informed her that the meeting did occur; stated conveyance term details were not Regular Meeting Alameda Public Financing Authority June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,34,"Jasty 71411 to Len SAnches 94611 hin Janchas@Gmail to 100 kunio NAHK 94506 KNAHBO@Gmail.com 4 Luu ASTARY 94566 bsa Claire Rubin 94611 clauresnobin@gmail.com SR John Ruben 94611 John-rusin@ Comcastine TR",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf CityCouncil,2020-07-21,34,"Vice Mayor Knox White expressed concern about the subcommittee not being a Brown Act body; stated there is an exception to noticing; committees can have subcommittees without violating the Brown Act; setting up a process, which is intended to be public and transparent, allows the ability to bring the entire community in; it should not be set up to have meetings that are unclear without notice; the process is problematic; expressed concern about the delay in creating a subcommittee, community objectives and goals and a work plan; stated the process does not seem to be moving forward; expressed concern about recommendations being received before the budget presentation in October; stated the steering committee process will take time; Council needs to be clear about direction provided and the scope of work; the matter is related to policing, not systemic racism in the entire community; expressed support for Council providing specific guidelines, expectations and timelines; questioned the dynamic of the September check-in; stated that he would like a commitment to the steering committee; the process feels like it is starting over and he will not be able to support it without a commitment to an open and transparent process. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated one of the subcommittees will address systemic and community racism and anti-racism. Councilmember Vella outlined resources which go into publicly agendized meetings; stated the intent is not to have a non-transparent process; the process will quickly fall apart if the City ends up with a process that does not include publicly agendized meetings, opportunities for community input and information is not clear; Council always has the ability to agendize items; noted the discussion centers around the selection process; expressed support for Council not dictating the goal; stated it is important for the community to goal-set and allow for a transparent process with the most meetings possible; many other jurisdictions have had informal meetings to receive input; the City must use the resources it has and should expedite the process; there is an expectation for the committee to make short term recommendations by October; inquired whether there is a way for Council to receive reports back on the progress in order to create a formal process subject to the Brown Act if needed. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Brown Act is an important principle; expressed support for respecting the process of hearing from the community and letting the community lead; stated there may be a hybrid approach which allows groups to initially meet, get to know each other and allow for a transition into a Brown Act body. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is not under the impression that the process will be secret and conducted behind closed doors; there will be public vetting of the process prior to coming before Council; Councilmembers have the benefit of being able to deliberate for hours with many years of experience; Council is asking community members with little committee experience to be involved in the process; many people who have not spoken previously may be overwhelmed; Council should receive the best input possible. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated time is about to expire. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 12 July 21, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf CityCouncil,2005-05-17,34,"resolution and give direction to staff to continue negotiations, to which Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative. The Development Services Director stated staff would continue to talk to the owner about acquiring the property; staff has attempted to talk to the owner and has not had success. Chair Johnson stated it appears the owner is now willing to talk and the City should enter into discussions if the owner is willing. The Development Services Director stated the City has been working on the project for many years; a Request for Proposals (RFP ) for redevelopment of the project was sent to the owner in December 2000; the owner sent a letter in January 2001 which thanked the City for sending the RFP and stated: ""the owner's desire is to wholeheartedly endorse the City's effort to locate a developer to redevelop the Alameda Theatre; staff has been proceeding on said basis for sometime; the DDA does not pre-commit the condemnation action; staff has always intended and hoped to acquire the property amicably; noted the property owner did not object at the CEQA hearings or DDA adoption. Commissioner Matarrese requested staff to comment on the claim of defects in the appraisal. Legal Counsel responded the Commission's action is not predicated on the joint appraisal; staff has full faith and confidence in the appraisal upon which the action is being based. Commissioner Matarrese stated the project is important; the City has an opportunity to save the Alameda Theatre; the City should continue negotiating with the owner. Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Chair Johnson inquired whether Commissioner Matarrese would amend the motion to include approval of direction to continue negotiations. Commissioner Matarrese agreed to amend the motion to include direction to continue to negotiate [with Mr. Cocores]. Chair Johnson stated negotiations should continue if the owner is willing the owner has indicated a willingness to continue to negotiate; the City hopes to resolve the matter by agreement ; hopefully, the owner is sincere about being willing to negotiate. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 4 Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,34,"e - 200 - - - sa - - - - no - ta - - - - - - - - - DE a",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-20,33,"shall authorize expenditures from the public art fund consistent with the purpose of this article, except that the City Manager shall be authorized to approve expenditures within the City Manager spending authority. All requisitions and purchases shall be authorized consistent with approval authorizations in the City of Alameda purchasing policy. The City Manager shall notify the Council of any expenditure approved by the City Manager, for any new artwork or project. Any two Councilmembers may call the City Manager's decision for review within ten days of the City Manager's notification. If no Call for Review is timely perfected, the City Manager's decision shall become final and effective.' In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the timing is 10 days after the City Manager's notification. Councilmember Knox White made a substitute motion approving introduction of the ordinance with the proposed amended language. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the substitute motion. Councilmember Daysog stated that he dislikes giving up Council prerogative in approving public art. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. (21-509) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code, Including Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) to Clarify Enforcement Provisions and Provide for Other Updates and Enhancements to the Sunshine Ordinance. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of continuing the matter to September 7, 2021 at 6:59 p.m. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 26",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf CityCouncil,2021-03-16,33,"MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED MARCH 9, 2021 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- MARCH 16, 2021-5:59 P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:01 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.] Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (21-149) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8); Property: Alameda Point, Site A, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager; Lisa Maxwell, Interim Community Development Director; and Debbie Potter, Special Project Analyst; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners, LLC; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms. [Continued from February 16, 2021 to March 2, 2021 to March 9, 2021]. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that staff provided information and Council provided direction; the first motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Abstain; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No; Ayes: 2. Noes: 2; Abstention: 1; the second motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Continued March 9, 2021 Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2017-11-07,33,"Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated that he is concerned with tying the hands of future Councils; he is in favor of setting aside 50% of the surplus. Mayor Spencer stated that she will not support the motion. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she does not believe future Council's hands will be tied. On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following voice vote: Ayes: - 2 Councilmember's Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese. Noes - 3: Councilmember Oddie, Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella. (17-674) Recommendation to Receive the Information Technology Strategic Plan (ITSP). Not heard. (17-675) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Third Amendment to the Long Term Sublease between the City of Alameda and the US Department of Transportation Maritime Administration. Not heard. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (17-676) Update on Tracking of Council Direction through the Referral Process. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (17-677) Bob Priebe, Town of Moraga City Manager, expressed his support for the City Manager (17-678) Bob Nader, SAWW, gave a Power Point presentation on boat yards and yacht clubs. COUNCIL REFERRALS (17-679) Consider Directing Staff to Provide a Public Update on Crime within the City. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (17-680) Vice Mayor Vella requested that the Council subcommittee meetings be agendized to allow Councilmembers to attend. Mayor Spencer stated the meetings that Councilmembers are on can be added. The City Clerk inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is requesting the subcommittees only, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded the sub liaison committees. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-27,33,"Councilmember Gilmore stated that she agrees with a lot of the points made tonight; Council needs to take a deep breath; staff should look at a broad set of options and bring the matter back to Council for discussion so the public can come forward and provide ideas; that she has heard several different ideas from the public; some of the ideas do not include jobs or housing; Council should be very deliberate and listen to the public; encouraged the public to contact Council or staff with preferred options. Councilmember Tam stated that she concurs with Councilmember Gilmore's and Mayor Johnson's comments; she feels that the wheel has been reinvented right after the wheel seemed not to be working; everything listed on Councilmember Matarrese's referral has been evaluated in the course of getting to a Master Plan; redeveloping Alameda Point is important, is a goal in the budget, but is not as important as developing a project that can be supported by the community and is financially and environmentally sustainable; the financial part is a big deal; the federal government does not think the world revolves around her and Alameda; having funding to get the project going is important; that she thinks providing direction is premature until the City can identify a funding source for conveyance of the property. Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he is appalled that people are accusing Council of having secret plans; Councilmember Matarrese's Council Referral is logical; local, non- profit development corporations have been used; Councilmember Matarrese is suggesting looking into the matter and nothing more than that; everyone has different thoughts; Councilmember Matarrese has set a baseline; a lot of caveats need to be included to provide leeway in order to put the issue in property context; Council and staff are not starting at square one. Mayor Johnson stated that she does not want staff to be limited what options are brought to Council. Councilmember Matarrese stated limiting options is not the point; the first point would be to focus on job creation and commercial development; the focus has always been housing; that he is advocating local control; he wants to give direction on maximizing leases and building a commercial community which has always been lacking. Mayor Johnson stated staff should come back to Council with a full range of options; the ideas are fine to consider; consequences would not be known by giving specific direction in a very narrow area; comprehensive options need to be brought back. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is proposing a comprehensive plan for job creation and commercial development at Alameda Point, including, but not limited to, points listed in the Council Referral. Mayor Johnson suggested that staff come back with options in September regarding how to proceed. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 33 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf CityCouncil,2019-12-18,33,"City Council Workshop Workshop Report Management Partners Attachment B - Workshop Evaluation At the end of the workshop participants were asked to complete a workshop evaluation form. The following responses are a compilation of answers from five of the workshop participants. Overall usefulness of the workshop (4.7 average score) Not Useful Very Useful 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of the workshop (4.5 average score) Poor Quality High Quality 1 2 3 4 5 The best thing about this workshop was. Having uninterrupted dialogue about our priorities. Discussion of effectice practices for elected officials and establishing City Council norms. Letting Council talk. Well planned and organized. Open and honest dialouge. Ability to talk through priorities. Some things that could have been better. More time for communications discussion. Room temperature. Regarding establishing priorities, questionnaire may have had some redundancies. A warmer room! Other Comments Need to do these two times a year. 27",CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-16,33,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands APD is agreeable to the transfer of responsibility to Public Works; inquired whether there are reasons APD supports the transfer. The Police Captain responded APD supports the transfer; stated APD is happy to help successfully transfer the program; APD has training outlines and programs which can be provided to Public Works; APD has experienced difficulty hiring for the positions in the past; transferring the program to Public Works will hopefully provide more success in staffing. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she plans to support the staff recommendation. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the matter; noted the program is a better utilization of resources. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. *** (21-758) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Tuesday November 30th at 5:00 p.m. works for Councilmembers to hold a special meeting; whether the Housing Element [paragraph no. 21- and the General Plan [paragraph no. 21- ] will be the matters continued for discussion, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for limiting the special meeting to the Housing Element and the General Plan; stated that she would like staff to alert the public of the meeting start time. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of scheduling a special meeting for November 30th at 5:00 p.m. to hear the Housing Element and General Plan. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. *** (21-759) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Add and Revise Recreation and Park Fees for Calendar Year 2022. Continued to December 7, 2021. (21-760) Recommendation that City Council, Boards and Commissions Annually Review Meeting Schedules for Possible Conflicts that Inhibit Maximum Public Participation. Continued to December 7, 2021. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (21-761) The City Manager made an announcement regarding the Community Development Department Annual Community Service Awards and a Posey Tube closure November 17th from 10:00 p.m. to 4:30 a.m. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2021 22",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-10,33,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY- -JULY 10, 2018- 7:01 P.M. Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 8:55 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella was present via teleconference from the Hilton Minneapolis, 1001 Marquette Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403] Absent: None. AGENDA ITEM (18-414) Recommendation to Review Ballot Argument Against the Initiative Measure that Proposes to Amend the City Charter by Incorporating into the Charter, Ordinance 3148 Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions, with Certain Modifications, on the November 6, 2018 Ballot. The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding the word count, the City Clerk stated the limit is 300 words. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Matarrese and Vice Mayor Vella did a very nice job; suggested changing the word ""fixes"" to ""modifications"" in the fourth paragraph. Stated the Alameda Just Alliance (AJA) is comprised of the Alameda Progressives, Alamedans for Black Lives, the Buena Vista United Methodist Church, Filipino Advocates for Justice, the Alameda County Central Labor Council, the Alameda Firefighters Local 689 and Renewed Hope Housing Advocates; the groups have recently joined forces to work for a just and livable community for all Alamedans, especially those who have struggled the hardest; AJA is prepared to defend the town against real estate speculation that is set to banish more people and threatens the sovereignty of the City government; the initiative to put Ordinance 3148 into the Charter is a powerful weapon against local control over housing affordability; it attempts to smash the ability of the elected Council to pass the laws necessary to maintain affordability; the law benefits and protects landlords, limited liability corporations, hedge funds, private equity funds and financial predators in the Charter; discussed the Blackstone Group's purchase of the Summer House Apartments; urged the Council to fight back with bold language: Laura Thomas, AJA. Expressed his support for the argument; stated that he is appalled at the assault on local control; first, an ordinance was overturned by paid signature gatherers and then, Special Meeting Alameda City Council 1 July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf CityCouncil,2018-06-05,33,"provided assistance with drafting the resolution; the wording is different than others. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the language could be changed from ""could include"" to ""include,"" to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the negative. Mayor Spencer's inquired whether release time means the employees would get paid, to which the Acting City Manager and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the number of union leaders, the Human Resources Director stated release time for union leaders is done now for union leaders to go meet with employees; IBEW has two and the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) has three. Mayor Spencer inquired how release time is determine, to which the Human Resources Director responded there are certain items that allow release time, such as meet and confer, time to negotiate. Mayor Spencer inquired whether release time is already allowed under the current contract, to which the Human Resources Director responded the contract is probably a little more specific and the resolution is broader; stated staff works with labor to mitigate impacts. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the resolution changes what is currently done; stated that she is concerned the City Manager or Human Resources Director would normally work out the matter with labor without direction from Council. The City Attorney stated the language ""which could include"" does not specifically direct that it has to happen and gives the flexibility. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of calling the question. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5. On the call for the original motion, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: No. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. The Acting City Manager inquired whether the language is clear, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative and outlined the changes. (18-348) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Background Information on the Crab Cove Property Prior to Any Council Actions on the Property. Not heard. (Mayor Spencer) Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 33 June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-19,33,"On the call for the question, the motion passed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 24 May 19, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-19.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,33,"to be appealed. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a grounds for the appeal is typically provided; requested clarification for the process. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated a stronger appeal provides a recommended number; there is a very low chance of success in the appeal; staff is looking for direction toward [appeal] arguments to make and the particular allocation number desired; staff has a couple days to put together the appeal on behalf of Council. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether an alternative RHNA number around 3,300 exists to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Knox White stated that he plans to support the appeal; he does not plan to support the resolution as-written; requested a friendly amendment to the motion in listing the following three reasons for the basis of the appeal: 1) 60% of voters recently voted to uphold the adopted Charter provision which prohibits multi-family housing from being built making the RHNA allocation thwarting the will of the Alameda voters, 2) Alameda's uniqueness as an island of the San Francisco Bay is subject to sea-level and emerging groundwater issues, liquefaction and loss of access to the mainland should an earthquake destroy bridges and [access] tube, and 3) the City's transportation and infrastructure constraints; the City is an island with limited ingress, egress and water supply transported by pipelines on the mainland; unlike many East Bay cities, Alameda lacks direct access to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) within its borders; the reasons mirror the comments received from the community in requests for an appeal. Councilmember Herrera Spencer accepted the friendly amendment; stated she is happy to include the reasons listed; questioned whether the reasons listed include the significant geological seismic issues; the language listed in her resolution is broader and includes more points and reasons; she is happy to provide a number for the allocation. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is ok with the methodology; the City's uniqueness should call for a proposed adjustment. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for items 2 and 3 raised by Councilmember Knox White; stated item 1 is more nuanced in understanding the obligation for multi- family housing; the City has been meeting the obligation through the housing overlay and density bonuses with the context of Measure A. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she will not be supporting the motion to appeal; she appreciates the position from other Councilmembers in upholding the will of the people and voters; there have been a number of subsequent presentations from regional bodies and other groups about addressing the heart of issues raised; support for the appeal is apparent; expressed concern for the lack of success in the appeal process; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-05,33,"The City Manager responded anyone is interested in purchasing a pin can contact the City Manager's Office. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she is grateful the U.S. Coast Guard renewed their commitment to be a Coast Guard city for another 5 years. (17-442) Vice Mayor Vella stated that she attended the Alameda County Lead Abatement Joint Powers Authority (JPA) meeting as the delegate from the City of Alameda; East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) has lead contamination in some of its pipes and in Lafayette; EBMUD is currently trying to remediate that the lead; the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has publicized that there is lead contamination in baby food; the FDA will not release names of companies; Gerber is fighting the release of the names; the City is partnering with food banks and other groups to request release of the information and for more transparency with the test results; June was lead prevention awareness month; she would like to have a presentation done by the Lead Abatement Executive Director Larry Brooks to discuss work that the JPA is doing. (17-443) Councilmember Oddie thanked Barbara Price and the parade committee for a great parade; stated that he attended a press conference last week; there is an effort to move all arraignments to Dublin; if moved, it would make it hard for defendants and people in custody in Alameda and their families; he would like Council to weigh in with a letter to the presiding judge. Vice Mayor Vella stated moving the arraignments to Dublin would also affect staff's travel time. (17-444) Mayor Spencer stated that she attended the Relay for Life and the League of California Cities in Monterey; one item that was raised was timing Councilmembers, not just the public speakers. Councilmember Matarrese stated that a 3 minute time limit is already in the City. Mayor Spencer stated maybe it should be implemented. Councilmember Matarrese stated the time limit is already implemented; Council does not follow it. (17-445) Mayor Spencer stated a delegate from the Sister City, Yeongdong-gun, visited and participated in the parade; Coast Guard Base Alameda/Pacific Area Ten did the inaugural festival which turned out really well. (17-446) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended a ribbon cutting for the Center for Independent Living; a gift of a streamlined wheelchair was presented to Alameda Recreation and Parks Department. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 32 July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf CityCouncil,2006-12-05,33,"Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. (06-599G CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement DA-06-004 By and Between the City of Alameda and the Palmtree Acquisition Corporation Governing the Development of Up To 300 Housing Units. Introduced. Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance incorporating amendments made at the meeting. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote. ( 106-599H CC) Resolution No. 14050, ""Approving and Authorizing Execution of (1) an Amendment of the Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) FOCIL-BP, LLC and Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (""FISC"" ) and the East Housing Portion of the Naval Air Station; and (2) a New Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) FOCIL-BP, LLC and Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the FISC. Adopted. Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution incorporating amendments made prior to the meeting. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-076A CIC) Resolution No. 06-149, ""Approving a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project and 1) Adopting Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, 2) Adopting Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, 3) Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 4) Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, 5) Authorizing the Executive Director to Amend the Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to the Catellus Development Corporation) FOCIL-BP, LLC and Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (""FISC"" ) and the East Housing Portion of the Naval Air Station, and 6) Authorizing Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 22 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-18,33,"The Community Development Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion to ensure that the 50% of the commercial industrial actually happens within a certain timeframe can be required. The City Manager responded in the affirmative. The Community Development Director stated if Council would like to move forward with requiring the project take place in a certain timeframe, the concept should be negotiated and included in the Operating Memorandum. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not want to see the process go forward with no commercial development in the end. The Community Development Director responded Catellus understands the concern and is prepared to do the commercial construction within a certain timeframe. Councilmember Matarrese stated his request is within a certain time or the amendment will be void. The Community Development Director responded the current Master Plan amendment includes a variant for existing entitlements. The City Attorney stated Council may need to take a short recess to allow staff to discuss Councilmember Matarrese's request; she is concerned with putting the request in an Operating Memorandum. Councilmember Matarrese stated his goal is to ensure the commercial construction is completed; Site A is an example where the commercial is in jeopardy because it is harder to do than housing. Councilmember Oddie stated if there is a way to satisfy Councilmember Matarrese's concern without destroying the deal, he would like staff to address the issue. The City Attorney stated that she would like a chance to discuss the issue with her colleagues and Catellus' attorney. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is excited about the commercial aspect of the project; easements for the additional crossings are important; the project is a good step in improving housing needs; he plans on supporting the project. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is excited about the maritime jobs being created and the strengthening of the waterfront; she cannot support a senior component; Alameda needs housing across the board; the universal design ordinance has not passed yet; she would like to see the northern waterfront developers work Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-16,33,"Vice Mayor Matarrese stated what is proposed has a number of good protections for renters; there are provisions in the ordinance that he cannot support; he is concerned the cost will make rent rise even more. Councilmember Oddie stated the issue is not being rushed; the process has been 18 months; the ordinance has some very strong tenant protections; he would like to have a model lease used in the future; he would also like to have more discussion on two issues: semi-private mediation and eviction mediation; there should be translation services; people should be educated about the ordinance to prevent landlords from making mistakes and so tenants understand their rights; there is a housing shortage in the Bay Area; a bill was introduced today to be able to use Boomerang funds for affordable housing; his goal is to bring peace, calmness and stability to the City. Councilmember Daysog stated the data in the preemptory clause trends rent of 50 units or more apartments; inquired whether there is data for different classes; inquired why there is an absence of data for less than 5 or 6-10 units. The Community Development Director responded the data was taken from the BAE Urban Economics Study; stated there is a lack of available data from reliable sources; data is not available for smaller units like it is for larger units. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is data that combines Alameda renter's income trends and rent to income ratio. The Community Development Director responded the income data comes from BAE Urban Economics community survey from 2013; stated there no way to correlate the data from the census about income with the census about rising rents. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has data from ACS that has the standard monthly rent payment to income. The Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated there is data on renter income and data on the rate at which rent is rising, but they are not correlated. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned about the mom and pop landlords, which he defines as 5 or less; under Section 6-58.15 definition of rental units, he wants to make sure there is leeway for the RRAC to take into account the small mom and pop landlords; inquired whether language is in the ordinance in the definition of rental units. The Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated there is not a current definition of a mom and pop landlord; the direction received from Council on February 2nd was not to address mom and pops in any other way in the ordinance. Mayor Spencer inquired if the RRAC considers a landlord's financial position. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 31 February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-07,33,"Drought and Provide Direction on Further City of Alameda Water Reduction Efforts. The Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation. (21-558) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of providing an additional minute for the presentation. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. The Public Works Director completed the presentation. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many projects are needed to qualify for the $15,000 rebate from East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD). The Public Works Director responded each individual meter onsite is eligible for the $15,000 rebate; staff can pursue all nine sites; the rebate is currently only valid through the end of the calendar year; she does not know whether EBMUD will be extending the program. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the projects have to be completed by the end of the calendar year. The Public Works Director responded that she has not been able to get clarification from EBMUD. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will forward information from the EBMUD Manager of Water Conservation; she hopes an application submitted by the end of the year will suffice. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired where the $2.3 million will come from, to which the Public Works Director responded staff is currently looking at the General Fund. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the matter will be placed ahead of other requests for General Fund. The Public Works Director responded the matter of funding is up for discussion; stated staff is recommending Council input on a standalone budget item; Council can consider waiting until mid-year in order to consider multiple budget requests; the process is imperfect; staff is seeking direction on whether to move forward with the matter and return with a standalone budget amendment. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 25",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf CityCouncil,2005-07-19,33,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - -JULY 19, 2005- -6:55 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05-341/05-035CIC ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda, Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda, and City of Alameda V. Alameda Belt Line. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Council/Commission obtained briefing from the City Attorney/Legal Counsel. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 7:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf CityCouncil,2016-01-05,33,"Councilmember Oddie stated that he could support doing so if there are not three votes in favor of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Daysog stated the fair thing is to start off the process by tying the benefit to length of tenancy; however, in several years, there should be a set amount; expressed concern over a tenant being eligible to receive four months' rent after not being there very long. Mayor Spencer stated the tenant would receive four months' notice so they have more time to find alternative housing or receive money; the issue is really providing longer notice beyond the required 30 and 60 day notices. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the ordinance requires tenants to receive one month rent for each year; expressed concern over landlords paying four months' rent for a tenant who has only lived there one year; stated that she would like to see longer term tenancy encouraged; landlords like good tenants to stay because there is a cost to prepare the unit and find new tenants. Mayor Spencer requested staff to clarify the matter. The Community Development Director stated the ordinance includes that the relocation benefit is equal to the value of the tenant's month rent up to a maximum of four months' rent; tenants can exchange the monetary compensation for staying in the unit longer; for example, a 10 year tenant would qualify for a cash equivalent of four months' rent; the tenant could opt to stay two additional months and receive payment for two months, plus $1,500 for moving expenses; time can be traded for money up to a maximum of four months; staff tied the benefit to the length of tenancy. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the landlord could offer additional time instead of money. The Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the decision is the tenant's choice. Mayor Spencer suggested that mom and pop landlords be able to choose whether to offer time or money in response to Councilmember Daysog's concern; stated the tenant could choose if under corporate ownership; the relocation assistance could be treated differently based upon ownership. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted doing so would treat tenants differently; stated that she would not support doing so. Councilmember Oddie stated defining mom and pop landlords would be difficult; noted some larger complexes are not owned by corporations. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 33 January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-15,33,"CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION (10-306 CC/ARRA/10-44 CIC) Semimonthly Update on SunCal Negotiations The Deputy City Manager - Development Services provided a handout and gave a brief presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Stan Brown, SunCal, was here to speak or answer questions, to which Mr. Brown responded to answer questions. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a lot of people would like to see the former Naval Base cleaned up; inquired whether SunCal is phone banking. Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative; stated SunCal has been contacting supporters; SunCal is urging supporters to let the Council/Board Members/Commissioners know that there is broad support. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal is intending to clean up the former Naval Base. Mr. Brown responded in the negative; stated the intent of the communication is for supporters to express continued support. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the communication is coming from SunCal staff, to which Mr. Brown responded the communication is coming from a consultant hired by SunCal. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the name of the consultant, to which Mr. Brown responded he does not know. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the transcript and consultant's name could be provided, to which Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative. Speakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; William Smith, Alameda. (10-307 CC/ARRA/10-45 CIC) Status Report of Finalized Navy Term Sheet Mandatory Milestone pursuant to Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Section 4.2.2. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated $108 million would have provided the Navy with profit participation when the housing market was hot and was calculated based upon far less units than what is in the Optional Entitlement Agreement (OEA); requested that future analysis project 5,000 units instead of 1,700 units. Regular Meeting Alameda Public Financing Authority June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,33,"Full Name Zip code Email Signature Amanda Hunton 94501 daun2681@gmail.com and but Erik Swanson 95563 faura Shen 94705 JAS ANOUSA KHAJVANDI 94501 kashwandi@yahoo.com A FIREZ tarks 94561 for Princess Alejandria 94066 princessty5@yahoo.com P Jake Havvid 14001 8 David Paraly guson of Jumelphilo 94501 James Pressh Hoaz 94501 Hour EVA VU 94501 ve Lanson Paurl 9450 UP Jossie Pavid 94501 JP T. PAWID 44501 An Yen LIM 94611 Rached Brown eye 94501 rachalbrown.edua @gmail M Raj Aurora 9450 McAnn Jillianne White 94501 Pala word",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf CityCouncil,2020-07-21,33,"and collaboration; the recommendations received would then be put in an unfiltered, formal report to Council; outlined the Brown Act provisions of a committee; stated the proposed process would allow more flexibility for committee members to meet informally, but still contain a formal, public process to get recommendations back to Council. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the task force will take community input or only discuss amongst themselves. The City Manager responded the steering committee will need to discuss the best way to involve the community; the process is still evolving; the committee is not envisioned to only meet amongst themselves; the committee will receive community input, but the method has yet to be determined. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired who has informed the process. Councilmember Vella stated that she has spoken to Rasheed Shabazz, Robbie Wilson and Shalom; she can provide emails and comments which have helped inform the process; she has not had specific conversations about who will serve on different committees; she has recommended people email to participate. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she met with the Alameda Youth Activists; she urged members to apply to the subcommittee; she has read about the need for representation of underrepresented people; Al Mance has expressed interest in guiding the process along with Jolene Wright. *** (20-543) Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of waiving Council speaking time. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Christine Chilcot has expressed interest in the steering committee; when she forwards emails expressing interest about being on the steering committee to the City Manager; those following the matter are natural constituents; expressed support for doing something that has not been done before. Councilmember Oddie stated that it is not up to him to decide the leaders and voices of the Black community; expressed support for staff to hear and consider those who have spoken on the matter; read a quote; stated the decision is not up to him; he will take a step back and listen; the timing is not what matters; the impact matters; he will not be critical and will use his leverage and power to accomplish what is being asked; Council should allow the Black community in Alameda to relay leaders and representatives. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 11 July 21, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf CityCouncil,2005-05-17,33,"appraiser, Mike Dunn, was jointly retained by the City and Cocores and came up with a value of $3.7 million; the appraisal the City is using is over a year old; for a jointly hired appraiser to come up with $3. 7 million and the City to disregard the offer and use a year old appraisal that is less than half of the jointly appraised value is fundamentally flawed; secondly, the City has not followed the adopted owner participation rules required by law; the rules specify that the City will give preference to property owners within the project area, which has not occurred; the City allowed Cocores to jointly pay for an appraisal and took half of the $25,000 price for a feasibility study in 1996 that has been shelved; the City has been willing to take Cocores's money in partnership, but has not continued to follow through with any owner participation rules; the third problem is that the City claims the justification for the public use of the project is remediation of blight the area is not blighted; the blight findings are unfounded and not supported by the evidence; additionally, there is evidence that the outcome of the hearing is predetermined; news articles indicate the City has commissioned construction reports and studies and committed itself contractually towards the condemnation and project; the City is conducting a sham hearing and is committed to going forward with the project; requested adoption of the resolution be delayed for a couple of meetings to allow the City to re-engage Mr. Cocores on the fair market value issue; stated City staff offered $2.5 million to Mr. Cocores at one point and even offered $3 million if structured as $2 million upfront and $1 million over a period of years; similar negotiations could continue if the resolution is delayed; if not, the City will face a right to take challenge; good faith negotiations seem to have terminated but could be restarted; additional evidence of predetermination is the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) that has been entered into with a developer; although the DDA is carefully worded that the Commission is not committing itself to condemnation, the mere fact that a DDA has been executed with a developer suggests there is no longer a discussion with the owner; urged delaying action to resume good faith negotiations and avoid spending resources on unnecessary litigation; finally, there are fatal, fundamental problems with the mitigated negative declaration; deferral of some of the mitigation measures are impermissible under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) i CalTrans raised problems, such as traffic impacts and impacts to certain intersections, that were not addressed; the City must comply with CEQA prior to adoption of the Resolution of Necessity; failure to comply with CEQA can create right to take challenges. Chair Johnson inquired whether the Commission could adopt the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 3 Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,33,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-20,32,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the language. Councilmember Daysog stated the proposed language includes change orders; inquired whether Council still has authority over everything else, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance with the amended language. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated that she understood the proposal was to include a Call for Review; inquired whether the Call for Review is for one provision. The City Manager responded his recommended change remains consistent with the terms provided by the City Attorney. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the ordinance is being amended to add the proposed language. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the language will be added in Subsection f. of Section 30-98.10. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification that the motion is to remove change orders from Council approval. The City Attorney stated the motion changes the original paragraph completely; noted the language shall read: ""The Alameda City Council shall authorize expenditures from the Alameda public art fund consistent with the purpose of this article, except that the City Manager shall be authorized to approve change orders within the City Manager spending authority. All requisitions and purchases shall be authorized consistent with approval authorizations in the City of Alameda purchasing policy. The City Manager shall notify the Council of any expenditure approved by the City Manager on any change order. Any two Councilmembers may call the City Manager's decision for review within 10 days of the City Manager's notification. If no Call for Review is timely perfected, the City Manager's decision shall become final and effective."" Councilmember Knox White stated that he is unsure whether to support the proposed language; the proposed language is the opposite of what he would like; expressed support for Council being notified of art projects, but not change orders; inquired whether the City Attorney can provide alternate language; stated the notification from the City Manager is for any art approvals under the City Manager's spending authority; change orders are not to be included in the language; noted change orders do not need to come to Council. The City Attorney stated the language does not allow the City Manager to approve any Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 25",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf CityCouncil,2021-03-16,32,"Pursuant to the Public Records Act, and 3) What is Privileged and How to Waive Privilege. Not heard. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) (21-181) Consider Addressing the Process for Potential Changes to the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Design Development Plan, including Public Input. Not heard. (Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Daysog) COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (21-182) Mayor's Nominations for Appointments to the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Recreation and Park Commission. Not heard. ADJOURNMENT (21-183) The City Council discussed the date to continue the meeting. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of continuing the meeting to March 30, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. At 11:58 p.m., the meeting was continued to March 30, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 32 March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2017-11-07,32,"debt process. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to follow staff's recommendation. Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern with the $2 million going into PARS because the $2 million is not going into a Section 115 Trust. The Finance Director stated the Section 115 Trust and PARS is one in the same. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the $2 million is going towards the retirement and not towards the OPEB, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City is contributing $3 million to OPEB and contributions are done biweekly through payroll. In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding the total amount going into OPEB, the Finance Director stated $10.7 million in the OPEB account. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would support the recommendation provided there is something that ensures the City is continuing the obligations relative to the OPEB contribution; inquired where the $2 million is in the current budget. The City Manager responded the $2 million would added to the budget going forward. Vice Mayor Vella stated the City is in the middle of a two year budget cycle. The City Manager responded that Council has a choice to add the $2 million to the 2018-19 budget at mid-cycle or with the biannual 2020-22 budget. Vice Mayor Vella inquired where the $2 million is going to come from in the current budget; stated that she would prefer the 50/50 hybrid; she would like to discuss the matter further at budget time. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to bifurcate the two requests. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with the City Treasurer and the Finance Director. Mayor Spencer moved approval of the first recommendation [$6 million pay down]. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 5. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the second recommendation [$2 million on going pay down]. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 32 November 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf CityCouncil,2022-05-03,32,"sign program; discussed improvements to the City's bicycle network; announced an APD swearing in ceremony and Boards and Commissions openings. In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer, the Interim City Manager stated his last day will be after the May 17th Council meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (22-319) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (22-320) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (22-321) Consider Directing Staff to Develop an Ordinance Setting Fines for Injury- Collisions Involving Non-Commercial Vehicles that Do Not Meet Federal Design Standards or Have Been Lifted/Altered in a Manner that Increases the Likelihood of Severe Injury or Death in Collisions with Pedestrians and Bicyclists. (Councilmember Knox White) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (22-322) Councilmember Herrera Spencer announced a webinar on the Grand Street project. (22-323) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended the Oakland Police Academy graduation; announced Board and Commission openings and encouraged residents to apply. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 3, 2022 28",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-27,32,"could be utilized, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Councilmember Tam modified her motion to include starting discussions earlier. Councilmember Tam responded that she has not modified her original motion; under advisement from the Mayor, the Subcommittee would have the option of starting discussions earlier than 2011 if schedules work out; that she thinks it would be very hard pressed for Councilmember Gilmore and her to find time to work with the departments because of going dark in August, having a full schedule in September, October being the election season, and the election is in November; however, every effort will made to do so. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (10-394 CC) Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, stated that she was present to wish the Council farewell. COUNCIL REFERRALS (10-395 CC) Consider Directing the Interim City Manager to Prioritize an Alternative Process and Plan for Alameda Point. Councilmember Matarrese gave a brief presentation. Speakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; and Pat Keliher, SSC Alameda. Mayor Johnson stated that the item is Councilmember Matarrese's referral, not something that comes from staff. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he always looks for alternatives; he submitted the Council Referral on July 21, 2010 as a proposal for where to go next; new elements have arisen, particularly, taking a look at the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, which is a good place to start; the City would always work with the Navy, Veteran's Administration, and State Tidelands Trust; that he wants a specific plan on how the City will move forward post the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA). Mayor Johnson stated some items [on the Council Referral] have already been done; that her preference would be to have staff come back with options; Council would need to talk about a process; a broader look needs to be taken before specific direction is given. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 32 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf CityCouncil,2010-04-20,32,"Manager/Executive Director's time is being billed; timecards show otherwise; SunCal requested clarification. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated responses should be received before addressing issues in public in order to avoid confusion. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated hopefully, there has been no misappropriation of funds; inquired how the Interim City Manager/Executive Director's charges are spread out to accounts. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded staff is fully funded wherever allocated; that her salary is split: a little bit in redevelopment and a little bit in the General Fund; stated staff time is budgeted to programs; staff's hours are charged to the SunCal account; that her salary and the City Attorney/Legal Counsel's salary are not spread to individual projects. (10-183 CC/ARRA/10-23 CIC) City Web Page - SunCal Updates and Repository The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation. (10-184 CC/ARRA/10-24 CIC) City Response to SunCal's Modified Optional Entitlement Application The Interim City Manager/Executive Director gave a brief presentation; stated a letter requesting further qualification and clarification of the application will go out tomorrow; the City Attorney/Legal Council will send out a letter with respect to reservation of rights tomorrow. Speakers: Nancy Gordon, Alameda; and Gretchen Lipow, Alameda. AGENDA ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 12 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf CityCouncil,2007-12-04,32,"The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 18 and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf CityCouncil,2019-12-18,32,"City Council Workshop Workshop Report Management Partners reasonable steps have been taken to avoid a forced transition and recognizing a parting based on ""irreconcilable differences"" is always better than an ""ugly, contested divorce"" (in an ""ugly divorce,' both parties end up looking bad), keep the following in mind: - Keep it professional. - Don't unnecessarily damage the manager's reputation- it is not needed to make a change. - Provide a reasonable period of time for the manager to find another position or provide reasonable severance-it takes time to find a manager's job. - Remember, how you handle the transition of the current manager will have an impact on the quality of the candidate pool for the next manager. Summary/Conduding Thoughts: An unstable council/manager relationship has negative consequences for the city council, the manager, the organization and the community. A positive and mutually supportive relationship will increase the odds of having a high-performing and successful city. Councilmembers and the manager need to make creating, supporting and sustaining the relationship a high priority. If made a high priority, the odds of success are great. Remember that your service on the city council is a unique honor that has been bestowed on you by your fellow citizens. While it is often a challenge, with inherent difficulties, someone needs to do it and your community has selected you for that responsibility. You have been selected to serve in a professional and honorable manner, during good times and bad. Your service on the city council will be over soon enough. Conduct yourself in a manner that will allow you to look back with pride-not only for what you accomplished, but also the way in which you conducted yourself (which will likely be remembered the longest). January 2017 - 12- 26",CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-16,32,"Consulting and develop a program manual with general and specific training in order to target issues of altercations while issuing a ticket. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the City's plan for active parking meter hours going forward. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff has not gotten to that level of detail; stated there are no plans to change the details in the immediate future. The Public Works Director stated the immediate priority will be enforcement. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council is being asked to approve paid parking at the ferry terminals, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation and Public Works Director both responded in the negative. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Council is being asked to approve the transfer of services to Public Works from APD and a program budget; inquired how much the program will cost the City. The Public Works Director responded Council is voting on the establishment of a new, umbrella, single parking fund; the fund will include three divisions; the program is intended to be self- sufficient and will not have money infused; the program will take time to constitute; the program will generate sufficient revenue and will eventually provide excess revenue; a Council policy will address excess revenue; any amount above and beyond operational expenses will be considered excess revenue; staff is seeking direction that the recommendation is acceptable for Council; there is more work in detailing the total cost of the program; staff anticipates needing additional vehicles; however, staff will present a mid-year budget appropriation request. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether current parking rates will change, to which the Public Works Director responded staff is currently not recommending any changes to meter rates. Councilmember Knox White stated that he plans to support the matter; he wants to encourage staff to put together the work program and think about how the City can use parking control officers to address issues such as double parking; staff should issue double parking tickets to address safety concerns being raised by parents near schools; he would like to encourage ways to deploy enforcement staff to address a wide range of issues similar to other cities; parking was previously heavily impacted in the evenings; expressed support for utilizing parking prices at peak times to ensure spaces can be found and for looking at ways to have policies come back. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the resolutions]. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he thinks parking enforcement is better left in the hands of APD; the residents need people that are able to enforce parking laws in a neutral and unbiased manner; he will not be supporting the staff recommendation. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over comments alluding to City staff being biased. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2021 21",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-10,32,"None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (18-412) Consider Drafting a Letter to Federal Representatives Supporting Congressional Bill S. 3036, the ""Keep Families Together Act. (Councilmember Oddie) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (18-413) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Historical Advisory Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board (PUB), Recreation and Parks Commission, Social Service Human Relations Board and Transportation Commission (TC). Mayor Spencer nominated Jeffery Gould to the PUB and Michael Hans, David Johnson, Alysha Nachtigall, and Sharon Nearn to the TC. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf CityCouncil,2018-06-05,32,"so original motion failed due to a lack of second. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution with modifying the language to: ""that the Alameda City Council urges the Acting City Manager and appropriate staff to work with the public sector unions at the City of Alameda post a Janus V. AFSCME Supreme Court case decision by cooperating to mitigate impacts and by engaging in good faith discussions, which could include implementing membership cards and release time for rank and file union leaders to explain the implications of a Janus decision,"" which is a little less specific direction and leave open the possibility that there could be more items that could be addressed. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion and in response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated by changing the language, the Council is not providing specific direction to staff, but is suggesting the topics; there could be other issues that have not been contemplated because the decision has not been seen. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the intent is include the specific things, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the word negative was removed, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she did not mean to remove the word negative. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the language could be changed to ""which could include, but not be limited to stated that she is trying to understand the intent. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded that is the intent. In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated that she prefers the language in the motion because it is not as directive and leaves the door open to other things that will support the unions' position. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated her motion stands. Mayor Spencer inquired whether saying ""could include"" means it does not have to include the specific items listed, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the intent is clear that the motion is the City trying to work with and support the union in spite of the expected negative decision, but Council is not directing what exactly has to be done. Councilmember Oddie suggested changing ""to explain. to ""depending on the implications of a negative Janus decision."" Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes the Alameda Labor Council Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 32 June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf CityCouncil,2020-03-03,32,"Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 3, 2020 29",CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-19,32,"Councilmember Oddie stated Council should go big on the item; noted other cities are providing the program; residents will go somewhere else should Alameda not participate; expressed support for closing Park Street from Buena Vista Avenue to San Jose Avenue every Friday and Saturday night and Webster Street from Buena Vista Avenue to Central Avenue; stated that he supports closing parking lots across the City where restaurants are near, such as South Shore and Alameda Landing; stated California Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) released an updated regulation allowing restaurants and bars to serve customers on sidewalks, parking lots, and streets; Alameda should not miss out on the program; expressed concern about eating next to vehicle exhaust. Councilmember Daysog stated residents are enthusiastic about the program; expressed support for the program; stated the program will help many businesses in commercial areas; expressed support for closing side streets such as Alameda Avenue between Park Street and Oak Street and Webb Avenue between Everett Street and Park Street. Councilmember Vella stated there are several street fairs scheduled during the summer on both Park Street and Webster Street; noted the events will not happen with regulations in place; expressed support for some form of special event street closure opportunity with closed off street sections for several days to allow for outdoor dining and safe foot traffic; stated there are opportunities in July or August; safe and clean bike parking and corrals will be needed; outdoor parking lots should be considered for Webster Street to allow business use. Vice Mayor Knox White the program should be implemented as fast as possible. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the program; expressed concern about closing Park Street and Webster Street on Friday and Saturday due to bus routes; stated those who rely on public transit need to be considered; the City can work with transit partners to see what can be done related to rerouting; expressed support for highlighting restaurants with an event and moving the item forward to become a permanent feature. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of endorsing the plan with direction to staff to look for opportunities to close streets in order to support business districts. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated that he would propose an evening closure to portions of Park Street and Webster Street on Friday and Saturday; expressed concern about having enough space to have proper social distancing; outlined other cities providing similar programs. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 23 May 19, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-19.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-11-28,32,"ITEM 2-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 28, 2018, 6:30 PM second? Arnold Brillinger: Second. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: All in favor? All: Aye. 03/13/19 Page 32 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-11-28.pdf CityCouncil,2017-06-06,32,"There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:32 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk and Secretary SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency 6 to the Community Improvement Commission June 6, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,32,"Discussed California's water shortage; questioned how to solve the water problem for the entire state; whether California has enough resources for everyone to live in the state; urged Council file for the appeal; stated California cannot accommodate everyone: Rosalinda Fortuna, Alameda. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council should first have a discussion and vote on whether or not to file an appeal of the RHNA allocation. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated staff recommends discussing the appeal first due to time sensitivity. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for Council discussion time set for fifteen minutes; stated there are three to four incredible and meaty topics which could each be agenda items of their own; each topic should have an in-depth analysis; nine minutes is not enough speaking time. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is willing to see how far Council can get on the first discussion topic; she is willing to consider a motion to extend time when the need arises; Councilmember Herrera Spencer's resolution is titled: ""Resolution of Intent to Appeal.. questioned whether a motion is desired. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of filing an appeal of the prescribed RHNA numbers. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the appeal will provide direction to staff as to what is being appealed and how. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded page two of the resolution lists reasons related to land mass size. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the previously approved projects resulting in construction of approximately 1,522 housing units should suffice as the RHNA allocation. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the negative; stated the language had been pulled from the original resolution; she kept as much of the original resolution, as- supported and added new language. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer is proposing any RHNA allocation for Alameda. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the negative; stated she does not have a specific number; she can support a discussion of a number to set; she does not know whether Council proposes a number of its own or whether the RHNA allocation is simply Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-05,32,"Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not want a first reading on an ordinance just yet; the survey and polling are critical to understand the community's opinion; he would like to understand how to gauge the revenue and other things that go along with a cash economy. Mayor Spencer moved approval of the referral, incorporating the comments from all Councilmembers. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion as written in the referral. Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has given staff a lot of direction and she does not see what a vote tonight will accomplish. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (17-439) Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates for the League of California Cities Annual Conference. Mayor Spencer inquired who are the current delegates. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded she is the delegate and Vice Mayor Vella is the alternate. Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to decide the delegates for the League of California Cities Annual Conference. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of designating Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft as the delegate and Vice Mayor Vella as the alternate. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (17-440) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Commission on Disability Issues, Historical Advisory Board (HAB), Planning Board and Public Art Commission (PAC). Mayor Spencer nominated Thomas Mills for the Commission on Disability Issues and Ruben Tilos and Steven Goertler for the Planning Board; stated she will make nominations for the HAB and PAC at a future meeting. (17-441) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended the League of California Cities in Monterey; the Fourth of July parade was great; the Coast Guard has pins for sale that show Alameda scenes, inquired whether community members could buy one. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 31 July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf CityCouncil,2006-12-05,32,"General Plan Land Use Diagram to Change the Designation of Approximately 74 Acres of the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project Site from Business Park to Specified Mixed Use Area, and (B) Amend Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.6 and Associated Tables of the Land Use Element to Reflect the New Specified Mixed Use Area. Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-599D CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Master Plan Amendment MPA-06-001 Substituting Office, Retail, Health Club, Residential and/or Mixed Uses for Approximately 77 Acres of Previously Entitled Office/Research and Development Uses. Introduced. Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance incorporating amendments made at the meeting. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-599E CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement Amendment DA-06-0002 to the Development Agreement By and Between the City of Alameda and Catellus Development Corporation, Dated June 6, 2000, as Amended. Introduced. Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance incorporating amendments made at the meeting. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-599F CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement DA-06-0003 By and Between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) Governing the Development of Up To 400,000 Square Feet of Office Space; a 20,000 Square Foot Health Club; Up To 300 Residential Units; and 300,000 Square Feet of Retail Space or 50,000 Square Feet of Retail Space and 370,000 Square Feet of Research and Development Space. Introduced. Vice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance incorporating amendments made at the meeting. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 21 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-18,32,"The Community Development Director responded the proposed project has a 15% universal design requirement; Catellus has committed to adding the accessible shower to ensure that the 15% of the units will be universal design. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Mayor Spencer is requesting higher than 15%. The Community Development Director responded 15% was negotiated with Catellus; Council can ask about increasing the universal design requirement. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council can require 30% universal design. The Community Development Director responded there is an existing Development Agreement (DA); Catellus does not have to comply with subsequent changes. Mayor Spencer stated Catellus is asking for an amendment. The Community Development Director responded Catellus is asking for an amendment to the Master Plan; stated staff negotiated 15% universal design units. Mayor Spencer inquired since whether staff could have required 30% universal design since Catellus is asking for an additional 400 homes. The Community Development Director responded staff negotiated and the proposal is the end result. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Catellus is refusing to do the 100% visit-ability and 30% universal design, which is what the Commission on Disability Issues is requesting. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Tom Marshall, Catellus, responded Catellus has to make the project feasible. Mayor Spencer stated serving the disabled in the community is important. Mr. Marshall stated the developer is aware of the question and cannot support the request. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the developer is going to set a price range on the units. The Community Development Director responded the 10% affordable by design would not be deed restricted; stated staff is not recommending the units be deed restricted. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the developer is willing to commit to the non-single family homes being limited to 55 and over. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-16,32,"Councilmember Oddie clarified the point is to not have attorney's coming in arguing for the large corporations. The Community Development Director stated the owner would need to request a reasonable accommodation, which would need to be approved by staff. Mayor Spencer stated ideally, it would have to be someone with ownership interest; in her experience with RRAC hearings the property managers say no to everything, she would like someone who is not being paid to show up and be a placeholder; she would like a meaningful mediation. The Community Development Director stated staff could leave the language as is and deal with the idea of a reasonable accommodation as part of the administrative regulations. Mayor Spencer stated all five Councilmembers are in agreeance with doing so. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the staff report indicates the RRAC mediation process allows consideration of numerous factors; she would like stronger language, such as must instead of may; she would like to specify the type of documentation that would be acceptable in the bullet points. The Community Development Director stated that the proposed changes would be in the RRAC checklist. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is very important to have specific information gathered by the RRAC and specific materials considered; inquired why the RRAC would not be required to consider the same factors that the arbitrator would consider. The Assistant City Attorney responded staff tried to outline the form the RRAC would use; stated the extra items are listed for the arbitrator because it is more complex and would be used by a hearing officer, not the RRAC. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with the extra documentation being given to a hearing officer; they will have the ability to analyze documents. The Assistant City Attorney stated staff did not want to turn the RRAC into a hearing process; the form requires a certain amount of information that should be ample for the Committee to render a reasonable decision. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired regarding the cost related to the hearing officer process, how staff arrived at the estimate of 20 hearings per year. The Community Development Director responded 20 is a best guess based on other cities. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 30 February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-07,32,"Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated plans do not require the removal of the building for DePave Park; noted the building exists on the maps for DePave Park; he would like to clarify that no decision has been made that the building will go away. (21-555) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider new items after 11:00 p.m.; stated that she is willing to continue the meeting until 12:00 a.m. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for continuing the meeting in order to hear the Small Size Big Minds lease [paragraph no. 21- 1 and the contract for Legal Notices [paragraph no. 21- ; however, she would not like to include the water conservation measures [paragraph no. 21- 1 in the discussion; stated the matter is not time sensitive and could take a while to hear; expressed support for continuing all Council Referrals to the next meeting. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will not support a motion that does not finish the regular agenda items. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of Council working through as much of the agenda, in order until 12:00 a.m. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (21-556) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to the Lease with Small Size Big Mind, Inc., a California Corporation, Substantially in the Form of Exhibit 4, to Extend the Term for One Year with One 12- Month Extension Option for Building 35, Located at 2450 Pan Am Way in the Main Street Neighborhood at Alameda Point. Introduced. The Management Analyst gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (21-557) Recommendation to Implement Water Conservation Measures in Response to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 24",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-05-09,32,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MUTES OF Wednesday May 9, 2018 6:30 p.m. no longer with the commission, if anyone else is interested in joining that subcommittee, there is space available for one more person. So I think that is all the announcements that I have. Anyone else like to make an announcement? Otherwise, I'm going to move that we adjourn. All in favor? Jennifer Roloff: I'll second that. 8. ADJOURNMENT Beth Kenny: Great. We're adjourned. Thanks for a great meeting, guys. 05/30/18 Page 32 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-05-09.pdf CityCouncil,2007-01-02,32,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - -JANUARY 2, 2007 - -6:45 p.m. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (07-001) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators : Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations : Alameda City Employees Association, Management and Confidential Employees Association and Police Association Non-Sworn. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a briefing from its Labor Negotiators regarding the status of negotiations with employee organizations; no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lana Stoker Acting City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 32 January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf CityCouncil,2005-07-19,32,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - -JULY 19, 2005- -6:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (05-339) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City Attorney (05-340) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case: Miraglia Enterprises V. City of Alameda. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee Evaluation, the Council discussed the performance of the City Attorney; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council gave instructions to the City Attorney. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf CityCouncil,2016-01-05,32,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether everyone agrees. Councilmember Daysog responded that he is fine with 25%; stated staff should really scrub the figure to ensure it is correct. Councilmember Oddie noted buildings with one to four units would only be able to evict one unit per year. The Community Development Director stated relocation benefits are the last component; staff has not heard whether there is support for the proposed ordinance or the Mayor's suggestion that there not be a sliding scale based on the length of tenure. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to account for smaller landlords; figuring out the correct relocation assistance should take smaller landlords into account. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he supports extending the time period; any other benefit should be a matter of mediation. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese would not tie the benefit to length of tenancy, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog stated when the matter returns, the staff report should address how staff proposes to deal with the issue of small mom and pop landlords paying the relocation benefit; a conclusion might be that not much could be done, but he wants to see that staff thought about the issue. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is against any special exceptions. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie wants the benefit tied to length of tenancy. Councilmember Oddie responded if there are not three votes in favor of the staff proposal, but there are three votes of the Mayor's proposal, he would support it; that he does not want any exceptions. Mayor Spencer stated that she is fine with having no exceptions; she does not want to tie the benefit to length of tenancy and Vice Mayor Matarrese concurred. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is in favor of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Oddie stated that he could go either way. Mayor Spencer stated tying the benefit to length of tenancy discourages long term tenants because it creates a disincentive to keep long term tenants; landlords would have to pay more if tenants are kept longer; that she wants to treat everyone the same. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 32 January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-15,32,"June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,32,"Full Name Zip code Email Signature Eve Gilbert 94502 eve.mj.gillert@gmail.com Ere Albut Bya Cardenes 94004 Baritis@Hotmail.com of 78 94611 jerre@jumption ty yion thie 9450 het ga th Yang the 94501 huayangwo@gmail.com C.com you Han Jane 94105 for 94011 saishfore H yrs (Yang , Wong) 9450 yangewanger@gmail com y Patrick Momoson 94501 volleymastery SIMON RE-NOLNS 94617 (It tomcastinal Smith Alan Zorno 94589450 alan.zeinn@gmail.com All Genn Sultivan M704 glennsb@utexy a Margaret Lyclon 94704 yydon, margant @gmail.com ML Any Pan 8/10/10 Anj NINA the 94801 Tray X1 94502 trankx188@gyahoo com an Alex Kim 94568 Alexforsf2@@gmail.com Mrs Jesy Jung 94131 ds2dsket1@gmail.com com 8 Caleb Brounice 94502 Cbrownlec/do@gmail.com -",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-02,32,"Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the proposal. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (16-059) Considering Endorsing the San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention, and Habitat Restoration Program Measure, which will be on the June 7, , 2016 Ballot. (Councilmember Oddie). Continued to February 24, 2016. Councilmember Oddie suggested the referral be continued to the Special Meeting on February 24th COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 2:36 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 31 February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2020-07-21,32,"Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Council is able to answer some of the questions raised by public comments; expressed concern about voices not having the opportunity to participate. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff should respond to inquiries made. (20-542) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to continue past 12:00 a.m. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of continuing the discussion to 12:30 a.m. Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. *** Councilmember Vella stated three Councilmembers have requested clarification about the selection process; questioned whether it would be helpful to hear from staff about how community members can be engaged. Councilmember Oddie expressed support for clarification to the extent possible by staff. The City Manager stated should the committee be City Manager appointed, there will be three to five steering committee members, with appointments made within the week; the committee would not have designated people representing entities; people would represent themselves; marginalized individuals are encouraged to join in order to represent individual views and a more community-based approach; the steering committee or subcommittee will be relied on to make decisions about the 5 to 6 areas for task forces; people may be added to task forces mid-process, if needed; that he has included his e-mail address in the Zoom chat feature; noted people can contact anyone within the City Manager's office; Councilmembers may be contacted and forward information; a more inclusive process is being looked into; the Assistant City Manager has provided a general time-frame, which is consistent and a little more aggressive than Oakland's time frame. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether information may be provided to additional platforms such as social media, to encounter interest, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted there have been concerns about the City Manager having too much autonomy; requested clarification of the roles, recommendations, and what returns to Council. The City Manager stated the process is different in that people want a community-based process; the steering committee will appoint the task force committees which will look to collaborate with the City Manager's office in getting resources and data to allow flow Special Meeting Alameda City Council 10 July 21, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf CityCouncil,2005-05-17,32,"Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05-028CIC) Resolution No. 05-136, ""Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Property by Eminent Domain for Redevelopment Purposes Authorizing Commencement of Litigation to Acquire Property and for Order of Possession; Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 et seq. (APN 071-0203-014 and APN 071-0203-015; 2315-2323 Central Avenue, Alameda, California - Alameda Theatre/Cineplex and Parking Structure. Adopted. Lester Cabral, Tenant, stated that a lot of information has just been received; that he opposes the resolution until the tenants are notified about what is going on; that he understands an eviction notice might be forthcoming. Chair Johnson requested staff to meet with Mr. Cabral to answer his questions. In response to Commissioner deHaan's question about the property Mr. Cabral is concerned about, Mr. Cabral responded Hair Shapers at 2321 Central Avenue. Lars Hansson, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) Board President, stated the PSBA Board supports the staff recommendation and urges adoption of the resolution; the resolution will springboard negotiations with the owner to allow reaching a fair market value within a short period of time. Duane Watson, PSBA Board Vice President, urged moving forward with the project. Robb Ratto, PSBA Executive Director, stated the project is important for PSBA and all of Alameda; the restoration of the historic theatre was identified as the number one priority in the downtown vision process; urged support of the staff recommendation stated Video Maniacs has been successfully relocated with the assistance of Development Services. Daniel A. Muller, Attorney for Cocores Development Company submitted a letter; stated the letter submitted includes five categories of objections to the Resolution of Necessity and right to take the property; the offer of $1.5 million recently submitted is less than half of the value that a qualified, MAI [Masters of the Appraisal Institute] appraiser provided 11/2 years agoi said Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 2 Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,32,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2009-10-20,32,"Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:13 a.m. in memory of former Councilmember Tony Daysog's father, Ricardo Daysog. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-20,31,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about Council not having an ability to review proposed projects; noted the recommendation provided by the City Manager addresses the concerns. Councilmember Daysog stated staff may return in one or two years if issues with change orders and small grants persists; expressed support for the recommendation provided by the City Manager. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would not bring change orders to Council; the City has a competent PAC; she has faith in staff; expressed concern about being in the weeds and causing project delays; stated art can be subjective; questioned the standards to be held and applied by Council; expressed support for staff's recommendation; stated the City Manager's proposed recommendation is reasonable. Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for the City Manager's recommended modification; expressed concern about the number of matters run by Council; stated there are many items for Council to deal with; she understands the concern posed by Councilmember Knox White related to outlier scenarios; the proposed change relates to an issue that has not necessarily arisen and that would be a rarity; expressed concern about the process being misused. Councilmember Knox White stated everything currently comes to Council; noted staff has proposed to have nothing come to Council. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is comfortable with the staff recommendation. The Economic Development Manager stated all public art matters can be appealed through the City Council; a 10 day period after approval can occur for appeals sent to City Council. Councilmember Daysog stated that he feels like Santa Claus when art projects are approved; he is helping bequeath an item which will be an artistic benefit; expressed concern about giving up Council approval; expressed concern for appeal processes. The City Attorney stated the proposed language to include in the ordinance will read: ""The Alameda City Council shall authorize expenditures from the Alameda public art fund consistent with the purpose of this article, except that the City Manager shall be authorized to approve change orders within the City Manager spending authority. All requisitions and purchases shall be authorized consistent with approval authorizations in the City of Alameda purchasing policy. The City Manager shall notify the Council of any expenditure approved by the City Manager on any change order. Any two Councilmembers may call the City Manager's decision for review within 10 days of the City Manager's notification. If no Call for Review is timely perfected, the City Manager's decision shall become final and effective.' Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 24",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf CityCouncil,2019-07-16,31,"The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf CityCouncil,2021-03-16,31,"In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Vice Mayor Vella stated one of the points of clarification of the first motion that she requested was relative to Councilmember Knox White's comment that the City look at different regional changes being implemented regarding non-armed response, including use of technology which is part of the AB 550 legation. Councilmember Knox White stated that he supports the motion, with the understanding it is at the bottom of the priority pile. Vice Mayor Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter was contained as part of the first motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. (21-175) Recommendation to Consider Options for the Alameda Police Department's Emergency Response Vehicle. Not heard. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Not heard. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Not heard. COUNCIL REFERRALS (21-176) Consider Establishing a New Methodology by which the Number of Housing Units are Calculated for Parcels Zoned C-2-PD (Central Business District with Planned Development Overlay). Not heard. (Councilmember Daysog) (21-177) Consider Directing Staff to Provide an Update on a Previously Approved Referral regarding Free Public WiFi throughout the City. Not heard. (Councilmember Spencer) (21-178) Consider Directing Staff to Extend Webster Street Physical Improvements/ Beautification. Not heard. (Councilmember Daysog) (21-179) Consider Directing Staff to Review an ""Adopt a Spot"" Traffic Triangle, Traffic Circle and Traffic Corners Program. Not heard. (Councilmember Daysog) (21-180) Consider Directing Staff to Provide a Public Analysis of: 1) When the Brown Act Applies to Commissions and Committees, 2) Documents and Information Released Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 31 March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2017-11-07,31,"Vice Mayor Vella inquired the base rate for the unfunded liability; is it based off current rates or a change and doe the employment numbers remain stagnate; how many employees are classic versus PEPRA employees and does that change the modeling; is there a drop off eventually; when is the City predicting employees will be retiring; does the model assume the City will maintain the current number of employees getting paid the same rate. Mr. Meyer responded the model is based off current number of employees in the classic versus PEPRA plans; slide 12 shows what is attributable to the unfunded liability and the normal costs; the bulk of the cost is the unfunded liability, which will not change much over the next 30 years; stated other cities like Alameda with reserves are also trying to pay down pension costs. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the recommendation. The City Treasurer stated the recommendation is something the City needs to do; it addresses a short term need by keeping some money liquid and a long term problem by putting some money towards CalPERS; the increases in CalPERS is unavoidable and it is important to get ahead of it. Mayor Spencer requested the $2 million to the 115 Trust and the $6 million to CalPERS be bifurcated and discussed separately. Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to see more go to OPEB; stated not all cities have the same OPEB liability; he is comfortable with the $8 million going to pension. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Oddie stated that he understands OPEB can be dismissed in a city that declares bankruptcy, but the city is still on the hook for the pensions no matter what. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is requesting that more money go to pension. Councilmember Oddie responded he is requesting that more money go to OPEB because he believes that there will be State action on pension; he would prefer to see the City be more balanced with half to OPEB and half to pension. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie's concern is correct and bankrupt cities are only held to pay for pension. The Finance Director responded cities have chosen not to pay CalPERS because they have tried to retain good staff, which was the case in Stockton; stated Vallejo did not touch CalPERS as a creditor; San Bernardino delayed payments but negotiated how to pay CalPERS over time; OPEB costs in Stockton's bankruptcy were eliminated through Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf CityCouncil,2022-05-03,31,"programs require the City to have a certified HE; the City needs to take the HE seriously and comply with State law; expressed support for the various options and creative ways to provide compliance; stated the City can add a number of different housing units and sizes in order to satisfy the affordable by design approach; discussed concerns raised by WABA and area residents; stated there is an opportunity to provide form based zoning cones similar to Park Street; expressed support for more right-sized residential, and doing more in the historic area of Webster Street with corner buildings being anchors; stated that she advocates for a walking tour of the area; there is potential to add housing stock in the transit corridors; she supports making the business districts more vital and visited; urged the building of more housing in order to address homelessness; expressed support for the next steps. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the next steps include staff meeting with the Historical Advisory Board on Thursday and the Planning Board on Monday; staff will finish consolidating all comments received and perform additional cleanup and adjustments to the draft HE to put the City in the best possible position with HCD; the draft HE will be sent to HCD and staff will spend the next three months working with the Planning Board and community to continue to refine the zoning and start getting into the details; staff will hear back from HCD towards the end of August; once staff knows what HCD thinks of the City's HE, the Planning Board and Council will hold public hearings and start making tough decisions about what needs to be done in response to HCD comments to ensure certification; once staff hears back from HCD, another Council workshop will be held; the Planning Board will have the first round of heavy lifting; Council may provide direction to the Planning Board; the current schedule is to have Council see the HE in November or December; the HE needs to be completed by January 2023. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she supports the proposed WABA plan; expressed support for the City working with WABA and a better way to evacuate if a bicycle and pedestrian bridge is built; stated the developers and builders are making money off the units; the approach yields unfortunate gentrification. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (22-316) Recommendation to Provide Direction on Potential Revenue Measures to Submit to Voters for the November 8, 2022 Election. Continued to May 10, 2022. (22-317) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute a Lease with Rhoads Property Holdings, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, dba CSI Mini-Storage for Thirty-Six Months for Buildings 338, 608, and 608A-C, Located at 50 and 51 West Hornet Avenue, at Alameda Point. Not heard. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (22-318) The Interim City Manager announced an affordable housing grand opening event for the Starling and Corsair flats and an Earhart Elementary School informative Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 3, 2022 27",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-27,31,"on whether binding interest arbitration is a mandatory, permissive subject of bargaining; both the Public Employment Relations Board and District Court of Appeal found interest arbitration is a permissive, non-mandatory subject of bargaining and expressly held that meeting and conferring with the union first is not necessary prior to putting the matter on the ballot. The City Clerk restated Councilmember Tam's motion: to move approval to reconstitute the Charter Subcommittee in preparation for the November 2011 election. Councilmember Tam stated that her motion includes beginning discussion in 2011. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is a March election next year. The City Clerk responded elections are held in March in odd numbered years and in June and November every year. Councilmember Matarrese stated the three proposed amendments are critical and need to be put before the public because of serious budget implications and good government. Councilmember Tam stated that her motion remains the same; in all fairness to the proposed fire fighter initiative, it should be juxtaposed against each other and should not separately preempt the measure. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the matter would not be discussed until November. Councilmember Tam stated that her motion is to have discussions starting in 2011 in preparation for the November 2011 election and to reconstitute the Council Charter Subcommittee because the Subcommittee might change after the November 2010 election. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Subcommittee could start working on the matter before January, 2011; stated the start time should be flexible so that the current Council Subcommittee could start working on the matter sooner. Councilmember Tam stated under the Mayor's advisement, the Subcommittee would have the option to work on the matter sooner rather than later. Mayor Johnson stated the Subcommittee should start earlier because more cleanup language might be needed. Councilmember Gilmore stated the same process should be resurrected regarding asking Department Heads for suggestions; inquired whether the City Attorney's staff Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 31 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf CityCouncil,2010-04-20,31,"Vice Mayor/Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Mr. Faye is referring to the flood plane, which was identified in the Preliminary Development Concept. Mr. Faye stated there were a number of physical changes to the real property and there continue to be a number of changes to the condition of the real property; new information continues to come forward which affects costs; cost affects the need for revenue; costs and revenue are what derive project profit and internal rate of return. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal would release information regarding infrastructure, public amenities and the cap, which SunCal documents ran up to $700 million. Mr. Faye responded all information would be released; stated the cost cap was removed two months before the election. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese noted even though SunCal lifted the cap two months before, the cap was in the initiative; if it had passed, the initiative would have been the law of the land. (10-182 CC/ARRA/10-22 CIC) Election Costs and Request for Reimbursement The Interim City Manager/Executive Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether half of the Interim City Manager/Executive Director's salary has been paid by SunCal, to which the Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded that she does not charge anything to SunCal. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested future clarification of the matter; stated the matter should be sorted out and posted. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the actual draws need to be posted. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated SunCal needs to understand what they are paying for. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that she is willing to disclose everything but the City cannot go as fast as SunCal; continued the presentation. Mr. Faye stated that he is not disputing the budget; the Deputy City Manager - Development Services indicated that the City Attorney/Legal Counsel is not billing time, which is correct according to timecards; SunCal was advised that the Interim City Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 11 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf CityCouncil,2007-12-04,31,"Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the golf course had more of a shortfall than was anticipated; inquired how much is left in the golf course fund, to which the Finance Director responded $1.9 million. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the golf course fund is burning through approximately $60,000 per month. louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the $15.5 million [reserve] is pretty well obligated; he believes that staff has the skills in getting requirements in order; having an outside review process would be a shame; actions have to be weighed; AP&T and the golf course are other concerns. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether a 1.5% reduction is aggressive enough for the next six or seven months. The City Manager/Executive Director responded the 1.5% reduction is a beginning; stated the matter will be monitored; she believes that the reduction fits at this point; direction can be changed if necessary. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated Council needs to consider how cuts are made. The City Manager/Executive Director stated the matter would be brought back to Council mid year. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the first quarter financial report and requested recommended appropriations. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 11:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 17 and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf CityCouncil,2010-03-16,31,"Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commission deHaan inquired whether an executive summary would be included. Mr. Faye responded that he is not sure whether an executive summary is required but would be happy to provide one. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated an update could be provided under City Manager Communications. The Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director responded information would be provided at the April 6 Council Meeting. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the document would be public when submitted on March 22nd The Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director requested that Mr. Faye introduce new team members. Mr. Faye stated Robert Hertzberg has joined SunCal and will provide an additional set of eyes; that he [Mr. Faye] is a partner and will be at every hearing; that he withdraws the request for the 60-day tolling period; a project would be submitted by the deadline; stated SunCal would lift confidentiality requirements in the ENA with exceptions. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 2:54 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 6 Community Improvement Commission March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2019-12-18,31,"and the mayor on respective roles. At times there can be a conflict between the role the mayor views themselves as playing and the expectations of the remainder of the council. It is difficult if the manager gets caught in a dispute over these respective roles. In particular, how the city manager relates to the mayor versus the other councilmembers needs to be clear. Don't blame the manager or staff for carrying out the direction of the city council: The city manager and staff are required to faithfully carry out the direction of the city council, regardless if they did or did not recommend it and regardless if some councilmembers oppose it. Respect the staff for faithfully carrying out the will of the council, whether or not you share the view of the council majority. If the council/manager relationship is not going well: If you or the council are having difficulty with the city manager, try your best to resolve the issue. First of all, find an appropriate way to communicate the concerns. The manager can't respond if he/she is not aware of the concern. As noted earlier, try to obtain clear council consensus for the expectations for the manager and communicate those expectations clearly. Try to be optimistic regarding the possibility of the manager making adjustments to satisfy the concerns of the council and give sufficient time to do so. Additionally, provide the manager opportunities to respond to the feedback and communicate how he/she will address the concerns. If all else fails and there needs to be a ""parting of the ways"": A forced separation of the manager is not a good experience for the council, the manager or the city. It can be costly, controversial and can cast everyone in a negative light. It can also erode citizen confidence in the city. Assuming all 11- 25",CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-16,31,"meters. The Police Captain responded sworn Officers can enforce parking violations; stated APD tries not to use sworn Officers for parking enforcement; however, APD Parking Technician staff is low; Technicians are not sworn Officers. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how APD knows whether a car is stolen; whether Public Works staff will be able to run license plates to check for stolen vehicles; what follow up will occur under Public Works. The Police Captain responded a vehicle found by Public Works staff that is believed to be stolen will require staff to reach out to APD; stated a stolen vehicle will necessitate a sworn Officer response; staff will also need to contact APD if a vehicle needs to be towed for blocking a driveway or citation is needed for parking on private property, both of which require license plates to be run; Officers use CLETS to identify registered owners. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how Public Works parking enforcement staff will suspect a vehicle is stolen. The Public Works Director responded APD will be able to provide Public Works staff with a hot list that can be loaded into the handheld device; Public Works parking technicians will not be able to see owner information; however, vehicle on the hot list will be seen for coordination with APD. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Amber Alerts will immediately be placed on the list. The Police Captain responded stolen vehicles are entered into CLETS by the initial reporting agency; the update is dependent on the originating agency; sometimes the update is immediate and other times the report updates after several hours. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the information normally goes to APD; however, will now go to Public Works staff; inquired how the information will flow from APD to Public Works. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the functions of the handheld devices. The Public Works Director responded that she can speak generally on the devices but does not yet have detailed knowledge; stated that she does not have information about how long information updates will take; staff will work out the details; discussed a ride-along; stated license plate readers differs from the handheld device, which is able to scan the license plate for ticket auto-generation; staff will work out the details of the how the hot list information ends up on the handheld devices. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the current enforcement vehicles have cameras, to which the Police Captain responded in the negative. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there is no loss of services; inquired whether Public Works technicians will be trained by APD technicians related to unhappy ticket recipients. The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff will work with Dixon Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2021 20",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-10,31,"In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, the City Clerk stated Councilmembers Matarrese and Oddie have voted aye. Vice Mayor Vella requested clarification on the question being called. Mayor Spencer responded Councilmember Matarrese's motion eliminates the green area, among other things. The City Attorney inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella needs the motion re-read, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative. The City Clerk restated the motion: approval of the Master Plan with items one through five listed on the handout provided by Planning staff dated July 10, 2018; with only commercial maritime in the The Assistant Community Development Director stated elimination of the artist studio and artist studio industrial from the maritime commercial. The City Clerk continued the motion: specifically eliminating the two items flagged on page 48; and re-designating the 1,900 square feet west of Building 19 as commercial maritime space. On the continuation of the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Vice Mayor Vella: Aye. Mayor Spencer stated that she could not hear; inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella voted aye, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative. On the continuation of the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Vice Mayor Vella: Aye. Mayor Spencer: Aye. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would make it a unanimous vote, but she stands on her objection to getting rid of open space. The City Clerks stated the motion carried by 5 ayes. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (18-411) The Acting City Manager stated 2,500 people showed up at the Makers Faire, which had 65 exhibits, 70% of which were based in Alameda. On behalf of the Acting City Manager, the City Attorney continued the announcement regarding the success of the Alameda Mini Maker Faire. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf CityCouncil,2018-06-05,31,"Francisco adopted the resolution; the new law is going to create a number of issue that staff will have difficulty figuring out; not having a process in place could cause issues for staff; she understands staff's intent is to engage in good faith negotiations around the issue and to adhere to the current contract language in line with the provision; enacting the resolution tonight is imperative. Councilmember Oddie noted many cities adopted the same provisions while negotiating new contracts; the resolution does not say how to mitigate impact and only prescribes good faith discussions. Mayor Spencer stated the City Charter is very clear that the Council hires the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk; the City Manager works with the employees; the City ended up paying $900,000 to resolve an investigation about staying in appropriate lanes; Council hires the City Manager and the City Manager works with the employees, union or not; Human Resources handles contracts; raising the matter during negotiations is appropriate; she is comfortable with a broad statement, not directing the City Manager how to implement employee contracts; other cities do not have the same Charter provisions; she does not support the second resolved statement because she wants to honor the Charter; she does not want to support anything that suggests the City does not operate in good faith already. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with the amendment to the further resolved statement to read: ""that the Alameda City Council urges the City Manager and appropriate staff to work with the public sector unions at the City of Alameda post a Janus V. AFSCME Supreme Court case by cooperating to mitigate impacts and by engaging in good faith discussions to explain and mitigate the negative impacts of the Janus decision.' Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Acting City Manager and City Attorney would propose any draft language. The City Attorney responded the matter could come back on June 19th; discussed changes that could be made. Vice Mayor Vella stated the resolution does not need to be wordsmithed and is saying the City will engage in good faith discussions on the matters, which specially deal with implementing membership cards and release time; she does not know how the City could engage in good faith negotiations without having a release time; the City is negotiating future contracts, but has current contracts; the resolution deals with an impact that would go into effect right away; sitting down and figuring out whether new membership cards will be required is within the City's best interest; Council gives direction about general values and policies being enacted related to staff; the resolution takes a policy stance and should be adopted as written otherwise it is just making a meaningless statement; she would like to adopt the resolution as written tonight. Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is a second to the motion; there was no second Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 31 June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf CityCouncil,2006-10-17,31,"and Development Agreement Amendment and a new Disposition and Development Agreement to replace 1,300,000 square feet of approved, but not yet constructed, office and research and development uses with 400,000 square feet of a Health Club and up to 300 residential units in the Catellus Mixed Use Development. Continued to November 21, 2006. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lana Stoker, Acting City Clerk Acting Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 2 Community Improvement Commission October 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf CityCouncil,2020-03-03,31,"should focus shift to DePave Park; that she can research an RFP process of this type; there is no funding attached to issuing an RFP. Councilmember Oddie expressed support. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (20-139) The City Manager made an announcement regarding the Coronavirus and the Cross Alameda Trail event. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (20-140) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Health Insurance to Part-Time Employees Working Over 20 Hours per Week in Time for Fiscal Year 2020-21. (Councilmember Oddie) Not heard. (20-141) Consider Providing Direction to Staff on Handling Late Rent Payments. (Councilmember Oddie) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (20-142) Councilmember Vella discussed the Lead Abatement meeting last week, a Girl's Inc. event, and the Cross Alameda Trail event. (20-143) Councilmember Oddie requested the meeting be adjourned in memory of Frank Munoz. (20-144) Councilmember Daysog announced Nick Cabral's birthday. (20-145) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement regarding the Cross Alameda Trail event; discussed the League of California Cities meeting discussion on housing; and an Alameda Healthcare District Board meeting and discussion addressing Coronavirus. ADJOURNMENT (20-146) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting with a moment of silence in memory of Frank Munoz at 11:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 March 3, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-19,31,"stated Webster Street does not have a parking structure; urged the City to plan for a Webster Street parking structure or solution; expressed concern about partially closing of Versailles Avenue without advance public discussion: Jim Strehlow, Alameda. The Senior Transportation Coordinator stated a recent report showed a child on a bike almost hit by a speeding car at Pacific Avenue and Schiller Street; the intersection is without a barricade; a barricade is be requested at the intersection. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he appreciates the network map included in the staff report; noted the map shows developing the program into the business portion; slower streets are safer than what exists; noted a pedestrian was hit earlier in the day at a properly designed intersection of Constitution Way and Buena Vista Avenue; stated current streets are not hospitable to those walking and bicycling; expressed support for the program, and prioritizing signage at every intersection; stated it is not a shelter in place program, it is a social distancing program; the program is going to be needed at least through the end of 2020. Councilmember Vella expressed support for more signage and barricades, especially where near misses have occurred; stated the design should be as safe as possible; expressed concern about limited information being provided and learning about programs after-the-fact; signage and barricades are critical at pass-through traffic areas; the program is related to social distancing and many people will be working and learning from home until the end of the year; the program should be continued until at least the end of 2020. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the program; stated that she regrets the lack of notification to residents; the program was brought by a series of unfortunate incidents; the program should be expanded over time under the Active Transportation Plan to allow for community input; discussed walking through town; stated residents support slowing streets; people are still sheltering in place; Council must remain aware of staff time; noted East Bay Regional Park (EBRPD) Board Member Ellen Corbett is urging cities to close streets allowing people more space to spread out and properly allow social distancing. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of endorsing temporary street reconfiguration for social distancing in response to the COVID-19 emergency, with clarification that this is during social distancing, not just shelter in place orders, and endorsement of moving forward in the spirit of Ms. Corbett's request of expanding the program on a temporary basis working through the Active Transportation Program in order to address it on a more permanent basis in the future. Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Absent; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Absent; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3; Absent: 2. Councilmembers Daysog and Oddie returned. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 22 May 19, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-19.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-11-28,31,"ITEM 2-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 28, 2018, 6:30 PM Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: And then she's the one who reported it, but I'm sure that it happens to people a lot more often than we know of. So I definitely want to take it seriously and look into it. Jennifer Roloff: Do we know, so if you actually call the fire department, they would say, ""Sorry, no""? Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: That's what an email correspondence that Laurie had said, yeah. It's not part of their. Arnold Brillinger: They may show up though. I've had occasion where I was dropped off, and instead of turning right on the sidewalk, I went over on the grassy area, and it was right after a big rain, and if I would have kept on going, I would have gotten back to the sidewalk, but stupid me, I stopped for a moment, and then tried to get going again, and just dug a big old pit in the people's lawn. And in that case, I did call the fire department, they sent out some burly guys and they alley- ooped me back to the sidewalk. So, there are certain situations where they will, but in this one, I don't remember, it was some kind of a mechanical problem, I think. Laurie Kozisek: Madam Chairman, I believe in your case, Commissioner Arnold, it was a lift assist. They were getting you back up on your feet, so to speak. And they do that a lot. They do it every day with people. Whereas this person that contacted you and contacted us was in good health, but had a chair that wouldn't move, and so she essentially needed another way to get home. And so the staff got her out to the curb and got an Uber or something like that for her to get her home. So the fire department wouldn't have been able to drive her home. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Okay. So, it's understanding the differences of what is under their role, and then what is beyond their role that is the gap that we're missing. Does anyone have any further comments or announcements? Jennifer Roloff: I just wanted to remind everyone, or share that December 15th, between 10:00 AM and noon, and I believe it's rain or shine, is the dedication opening of Jean Sweeney Park. And if we can go there, I think it's great. Amy will be there from Parks and Rec, and I think it's always good we can have a presence. I plan to be there. 10:00 AM to noon, Jean Sweeney Park, on the 15th. And then, on a happy note, this Saturday, December 1st, from 12:00 PM to 5:00 PM at Feel Good Chiropractic on Central, Sensory Santa is taking appointments, and I think it's for children with sensory issues. So, there's no spotlights, no crowds, no extra noise, one-on-one quiet appointments, and I thought that was fantastic that our community was responding to needs of some of the children. So, they're still taking appointments. If anyone watching is interested, or spread the word. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: That's awesome. 8. ADJOURNMENT Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Okay, I'd like to do a motion to adjourn this meeting. Do I have a 03/13/19 Page 31 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-11-28.pdf CityCouncil,2017-06-06,31,"the amortization schedule and how much the City would save in the CalPers contribution each year; more is saved in the long term than the short term; all options will be brought to Council. Mayor/Chair Spencer stated that she would like money allocated for the Jean Sweeney Open Park space parcels; she believes the public safety contracts are not fiscally sustainable; she would like more money to go towards parks and other items important to the community. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella requested an update on the costs of the parcels and a progress report whether grants are available; stated if Council is asking employees to pay a portion of benefits or pensions, she would like to review the benefits that Council receives. Mayor/Chair Spencer stated Council's pay rate should be reviewed. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the City Council/SACIC Budget resolutions. Councilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft, Vella, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor/Chair Spencer - 1. Councilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of workforce change resolution. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie moved approval of amending the Pension Rate Stabilization Program and Other Post-Employment Benefits Funding Policy. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft, Vella, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Chair Spencer - 1. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella moved approval of directing the City Manager, or designee, to deposit $6,043,000 of Committed General Fund. Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice votes: Ayes: Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft, Vella, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes: Chair Spencer - 1. ADJOURNMENT Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency 5 to the Community Improvement Commission June 6, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,31,"consequences for families as well as the vibrancy of the community; discussed neighbors that have moved away due to displacement; the City has a responsibility to the past to build a better community and ensuring residential zoning results in 5,300 units between 2023 and 2031: urged Council adopt the staff resolution: Gaylon Parsons, Alameda. Expressed support for the City staff resolution; stated it is important that affordable and multi-family housing is dispersed around the City and not pressed onto the base; AFFH ensures the benefits and opportunities of having neighbors of different class statuses and ages; urged Council consider the future when investing in creating the needed community: Grover Wehman-Brown Alameda. Discussed a letter submitted; expressed support for filing the appealfor the Planning Board recommendation to delete the Article 26 clause; stated alternative language should be included should Council wish to leave the clause,; he would like input from the City Attorney as to the necessity of including a statement; State law only partially preempts Article 26; the overall strategy presented in the staff report is good; expressed support for further promotion of Alameda Point and Encinal Terminal sites, including a request from the Navy to remove the cap on Alameda Point: Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society. Urged Council to direct staff to develop a comprehensive game plan to successfully renegotiate Alameda Point's residential cap with the United States Navy; stated there is agreement in adopting a Housing Element which maximizes the use of City owned land at Alameda Point; the space is a tool for meeting the RHNA number; it is clear that the City cannot maximize the use of City owned land at Alameda Point without lifting unreasonable and outdated caps on housing units; the effort must begin now and be on a parallel track with preparing the Housing Element; expressed support for adding language to the resolution which acknowledges the City taking action to renegotiate obsolete caps; urged Council consider each city having an obligation to address the housing crisis: Donna Fletcher, Alameda. Expressed support for filing an appeal; stated the State hands out numbers expecting cities to appeal; the process is a negotiation and it is time for the City to take the next step; expressed support for the Navy lifting caps at Alameda Point; stated the projections for growth in California should consider sustained growth over the next 20 to 30 years by demanding zoning laws be dropped to support multi-family housing; discussed slowed growth due to the economy: Matt Reid, Alameda. Expressed support for appealing the RHNA allocation numbers; urged the City pursue the matter further; stated the issue is simple and Alameda is limited in geography; the City is primarily an island with a peninsula; there are not enough bridges or tunnels to accommodate the proposed growth of thousands of units; urged Council have Alameda join other cities in petitioning a reduction in [RHNA] numbers; discussed a study from the Embarcadero Institute: Carmen Reid, Alameda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-05,31,"Councilmember Oddie stated when staff comes back, he would like to see options and examples of what other cities are doing with regards to zoning. Mayor Spencer stated her referral is very specific regarding including options like preferences for owner operators who currently live in Alameda, conditional zoning regulations and limiting the number of dispensaries; she would like the support of Council to give further directions and have staff provide specific options on September 5th and return by September 19th; she would like the process to move faster and not wait until January. The City Manager responded that January is when the State regulations will take effect and recreational use becomes legal. Mayor Spencer stated the City should be able to do the ordinance now and be prepared to go forward with recreational use in January; she does not want to wait until January to go forward with medical use; she would like to expedite the process. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether Mayor Spencer is asking to have medical dispensaries before January 2018. Mayor Spencer responded that is what the City Manager stated. The City Manager responded she understood Mayor Spencer is requesting medical dispensaries to come in before recreational use. Mayor Spencer stated medical dispensaries are currently legal within the State; medical marijuana is available at dispensaries in other cities and not in Alameda; she does not want to wait until 2018 to discuss medical dispensaries; it is important to move forward with the medical portion now. Vice Mayor Vella inquired what is Mayor Spencer's timeline; stated the referral addresses other options; she does not see anything in the language of the referral that prioritizes medical dispensaries. Mayor Spencer responded since medical use is now legal, she would like to focus on proceeding with the medical aspect now. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether a draft ordinance would be presented September 5th meeting; stated that he would like to have language for the Council to review. The City Manager responded staff could bring examples from other cities to start. Councilmember Oddie stated that he would also like direction from Council to be taken into account. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 30 July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf CityCouncil,2006-12-05,31,"Mr. Marshall stated said development was Pacific Commons. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated some of the Planning Board members visited the site and expressed a deep concern about project direction; inquired whether Council and the CIC could be assured that the same direction would not be taken. Mr. Marshall responded the nature of the project dictates tenant quality; stated 50,000 square feet of retail would be at the waterfront portion of the project, which leaves 250,000 square feet for core retail; big footprint buildings would be limited; the strategy would be followed. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated the nature of the project is pedestrian-oriented and well designed, which results in a certain elf-selection; work is still required to get the type of desired tenants. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she appreciates Catellus's hard work to nail down Miracle League commitments. (06-599A CC) Resolution No. 14047, ""Certifying the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Revised Catellus Mixed Use Development (State Clearinghouse #2006012091) . "" Adopted. Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-599B CC) Resolution No. 14048, ""Making Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Making Findings Concerning Alternatives, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project (State Clearinghouse #2006012091. Adopted. Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution incorporating amendments made prior to the meeting. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-599C CC) Resolution No. 14049, ""Approving General Plan Amendment, GPA-06-01: General Plan Amendments to: (A) Amend the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 20 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-18,31,"ordinance. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the site will be very attractive to uses that need to be on the water. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the water taxi commitment and hours, the Assistant Community Development Director stated the Master Plan commitment is that there will be a public water shuttle facility dock constructed; phasing needs to be approved before being constructed; the Transportation Management Association (TMA) will ultimately make the determination. Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is a commitment to have a water shuttle. Sean Whiskeman, Catellus, responded the hard work is building the infrastructure for the water shuttle; stated the actual service will fall to the TMA to generate the funds to operate the shuttle. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City is going to have a water shuttle or only a dock. Mr. Whiskeman responded the City will receive the dock and the vessel,; stated the operating funds will be generated by the TMA; additional revenue will be allocated to the TMA from the new housing. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Catellus has had discussions with WETA. Mr. Whiskeman responded in the negative; stated Catellus plans on speaking with WETA. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the TMA will make the final decisions on the water shuttle. Mr. Whiskeman responded in the affirmative; stated the TMA board is made up of a representative of Catellus, TriPointe, the shopping center and the City. Mayor Spencer inquired whether TMA would have public meetings; and whether the public be notified of the meetings and be a part of the dialogue, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer stated the shuttle would need to be very accessible to be a part of the traffic solution; she does not want to end up with a shuttle sitting at a dock not being used; inquired whether the project will be 100% visit-ability, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired whether every project can be required to have 100% visit-ability and 30% accessible housing. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-16,31,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is nothing preventing the parties from working out an agreement between themselves. Mayor Spencer stated the language is just clarification and is not a substantive change. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft Section 6.58-90D on parties failure to appear for the hearing; should allow an agent or a designee to attend the hearing; many of the smaller landlords are elderly or live out of town; someone with authority should attend the RRAC meeting to bind the owner to what the RRAC recommends. Mayor Spencer stated that she wants someone with ownership interest. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council agreed to change the requirement; the penalty would be if someone attends with no authority to make a decision, then the rent increase is null and void. Mayor Spencer stated the decision was to have someone with ownership interest; if there is a hardship, then someone else could attend; the default is that it be someone with ownership interest. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated if something prevents the person with ownership interest from attending, they must send someone who has the authority to act. Mayor Spencer agreed; stated the default is someone with ownership interest. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated a property owner could attend who has no knowledge of the day to day operations of the property; questioned what is gained by requiring the owner attend. Councilmember Oddie stated the intent is to have larger corporation landlords, who want the 20% rent increases attend the hearing. Mayor Spencer agreed; stated she is fine with leaving ownership interest. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated to be fair and balanced for both sides, making someone get on a plane for a 6% rent increase is not justified. Councilmember Oddie stated the corporate landlords who want to increase the rent should come justify it; an elderly mom and pop landlord wanting to send their child to represent them is understandable. Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees; if the landlords are elderly or have an issue, it is okay to send someone; the default would be to have as many owners show up as possible. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft recommended including the disabled as well. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 29 February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf CityCouncil,2009-02-07,31,"Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 5:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 31 February 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-07,31,"employment; the benefit is being added on; she understands the service credit in the department; expressed support for AFD; stated Firefighters are breathing harmful and unhealthy air and deserve lifetime medical benefits; she can justify the service credit for those working in AFD; however, she has a difficult time seeing the credit applied to someone coming in from the outside; the City will have to grapple with how to pay its unfunded OPEB liabilities. Councilmember Daysog stated the time limit allows the City to experiment. Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of resolution, with a caveat to have it sunset in five years. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion. Under discussion, the City Manager stated that he recommends the motion be consistent with the staff recommendation to amend the resolution to indicate the benefits are only for similar benefits held at a previous organization, and will not exceed said previous benefits. Councilmembers Daysog and Knox White accepted the recommendation as an amendment to the motion. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for training first responders in order to allow for promotions; stated the City has historically tried to promote from within; she will not be supporting the matter due to being concerned about the policy. On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3. (21-554) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to the Lease with Dreyfuss Capital Partners, a California Limited Liability Company to Extend the Term for Five Years for Building 29, Located at 1701 Monarch Street, at Alameda Point. Introduced. The Management Analyst gave a brief presentation. The City Attorney stated the title of the matter reads five years; the substance of the staff recommendation is for 4 years and 11 months; he would like to clearly reflect that the Council action will be for a 4 years and 11 month extension, not five years. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the title of the ordinance will need to be changed as well. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved introduction of the corrected ordinance. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 23",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-05-09,31,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MUTES OF Wednesday May 9, 2018 6:30 p.m. Beth Kenny: Thank you. Commissioner Deutsch, do you have any announcements you'd like to make? Susan Deutsch: No. Beth Kenny: Vice Chair Barrett? Jenn Barrett: No. Beth Kenny: Commissioner Hall? Commissioner Aghapekian? I have a few. First, I think it's also on the 19th, a sub-section of the Alameda PTA for students with disabilities usually has a resource fair, but this year instead, they've opted to have a picnic and they wanted to let you all know that you're invited. I'll be sending out something via Laurie, but I wanted to keep that on your radar. And all community members are invited. So if you're able to, please attend. Beth Kenny: And then I wanted to mention quickly that there were two things sent out about a job fair in San Francisco Public Library, and then also the Exploratorium is going to be hosting a job fair for people with disabilities to get jobs in that, not only with the Exploratorium but with a few other museums in San Francisco. So please, if you know anyone, send them out that information that has been sent out to you. And if anyone needs that information, they can contact Laurie or myself and we can resend that to you. Beth Kenny: I attended the Marina Shores, they had an open house this past weekend, and that is the development that's going to be going along the estuary over along Clement Street there. And it was very interesting. It was on a barge, where they're going to have four of these barges to make them like a community center where there will be makerspace and recreation. I got the card of a woman who is going to be working on the recreation stuff because I wanted to talk further. Commissioner Deutsch, I know you're connected with BORP [Bay Area Outreach and Recreation Program]? I always get that name wrong. Susan Deutsch: Well, I've contacted them many times, but we've never been able to get them here. Beth Kenny: Yes. They're very into the idea of having accessible ways for people to get on the water, which would be great if we can help connect those two organizations. I think those are my announcements. Commissioner Brillinger? Arnold Brillinger: Yes, I'm sorry. The leg of the microphone was covering up this one item I had here, and that's our special events committee, the sub-committee, that was Lisa, Jenny, Tony, and myself, I think that we ought to have a meeting and see if there are any special events that we want to be a part of. Lisa Hall: Well, the 4th of July picnic, I think that's our big hot topic coming up, right? Arnold Brillinger: That's right. Beth Kenny: I think it would be great for you guys to meet. And now that Commissioner Lewis is 05/30/18 Page 31 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-05-09.pdf CityCouncil,2007-01-02,31,"also the first African American Councilmember on the Oakland City Council ; extended condolences to the entire Gilmore family; adjourned the meeting in a moment of silence for the loss of former President Gerald Ford and Carter Gilmore. Respectfully submitted, Lana Stoker Acting City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 31 January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf CityCouncil,2005-07-19,31,"the establishment of seventeen movie theaters in town. (05-370) David Kirwin, Alameda, expressed concern about the megaplex theatre and parking structure project and funding; questioned whether there would be a $1,000 parcel tax; stated parking lots adjacent to businesses are sufficient; there is a need for increased public awareness regarding the project. Mayor Johnson responded there is not a parcel tax; requested staff to inform Mr. Kirwin where he should go for information. The Acting City Manager stated Mr. Kirwin, and others, could meet with staff in the City Manager's Office or Development Services Department. Mayor Johnson stated information could also be mailed or e-mailed, if preferred. (05-371) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, stated people opposed to the [theater and parking structure) project have been providing misinformation; stated PSBA would have opposed the project if a $1,000 parcel tax were involved; noted the Downtown Vision plan from May, 2000 indicated that informal talks about a mutli-screen - theater were underway COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (05-372) - Councilmember deHaan stated that he visited the Bayport site; the transit shelter on Tinker Avenue is less than adequate; the size of the sidewalks at Bayport are extremely narrow, do not match other sidewalks in Alameda, and are not pedestrian friendly; said matters should be considered when other developments are built. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 11:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 31 July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf CityCouncil,2016-01-05,31,"The Community Development Director stated Council will have an opportunity to review the components of the plan. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated there has to be some evidence that substantial work is going to occur; inquired whether staff does not mean every capital plan would be approved by Council. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated Council would approve the program requirements; provided examples; stated the number of no cause evictions allowed in one year could have a cap to prevent mass evictions; the ordinance includes a sliding scale; concern has been raised about staff's proposed 50% cap; inquired whether the cap should be changed to 25%. Councilmember Daysog responded definitely. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired in the case of mass evictions, would landlords be able to raise rents not at all or by the allowable cap, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City is trying to prevent clearing out buildings unless something such as soft story work has to be done. The Community Development Director stated tenants could be temporarily relocated while work is completed. The City Attorney inquired whether or not allowing a rent increase after major capital improvements allows for a fair return on investment. The Assistant City Attorney responded the capital plan would allow the housing provider to recover costs over a period of time. The City Attorney clarified there could be a rent increase. Councilmember Oddie stated there could be an increase in the case of capital improvements, which would be an exception. The Community Development Director clarified no fault evictions are being addressed, not just cause evictions, which include capital improvements; stated the concern is landlords might find mass evictions more streamlined or cheaper than going through a capital improvement plan. Mayor Spencer noted tenants will have difficulty relocating while vacancy rates are very low; inquired whether Councilmember Oddie's proposal is to limit mass evictions to 25% per year. Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 31 January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-15,31,"Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:23 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda Public Financing Authority June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,31,"rve Courts 1-6 at Fairfield Tennis Comale piokie We the ball undersigned, courts since call the on the City of Alameda and ARPD to drop the consideration to converting court #4 or any of the tannis courts at WAPA, Krusi or Leydecker pario couris into after 4pm and on all the higher demand for tennia courta that has also occurred this year. The walt times to play tennis at WAPA. Kruoi, Leydeckor are excessive during the weekdays logking into meeting Longletow courts are alreedy home to pickle bati We request the city and ARPD look into other solutions for the pickle ball demand and we also request College of Atameda, weckendu, base courts The existing tennie courto are not enough to meet this demand for tennia courta currently in Alameda Tennis courts currently not being used: AHS FHS zil Full name Posteode Email address Signature 94501 He LEARA SUMRALL 94501 MiTCHCOBLUE@AT for Bill Griesel William 94501 bilgrieselfritional can Science AurelioPalmania 94606 Kwok Yin Chan 94501 Kwookyiuchou@me id Takeen Runi 94612 kholo app a unney 7 UNE 94552 no Lawrence yee 94501 AILIANA FATRICK 94578 jybpsyy4me@yahoo.com Curt Paige Ivey 94501 lenorepaige@gmail.com Sira c. 94501 Sive If staron Gooz24501 UgnicMically 94501 Patrick Kim 94001 hotinat one patrick. Kim@ bioneer. 45.com oz Published and promoted by the Alameda Happy Tennis Group at Fairfield Tennis Complex When complein, please return to: The Alameda Happy Tonnis Group at Fairfleld Tennis Complex or email diristly to both gov and awooldidge@alamedace.gov For tmoreinte please join our Facebook Croup, We may contact you fur spolatos on DE IVE will not une your information fer wy other purposs or shan # with any other",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-02,31,"CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (16-057) The Interim City Manager stated the City of Alameda has an advertisement in the San Francisco Examiner, Big Game Guide; staff would like to organize a driving tour of the northern waterfront. Mayor Spencer stated there were no objections. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (16-058) Consider Directing the City Manager to Prepare Analysis and Recommendations Regarding Reviving the Airport Operations Committee. (Councilmembers Daysog and Oddie). Councilmember Daysog stated the impact of the altered flight plan are a concern to residents; Alameda needs its own entity to address airport issues. Councilmember Oddie stated it would be a short term Committee; he would like to make sure Alameda has a say in this issue. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City pays a Federal lobbyist in Washington, D.C.; inquired what could be done to lobby the Federal Government. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he would like an analysis and recommendation to reinstate the Committee. Councilmember Daysog stated the City could work with the lobbyists and others to get some ideas on how to proceed effectively. Mayor Spencer stated that she supports the proposal; requested information on the dormant Airport Operations Committee and how it was formatted. The Interim City Manager stated the City now monitors 6 Committee's on airport noise, which is very time intensive for staff; the City would need to rely heavily on the citizens that have the expertise and connect them with the lobbyists to assist staff. Mayor Spencer stated the Mayor of San Leandro is connecting with the FAA and is trying to set up a phone conference. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is strength in numbers, so the City should connect with other cities to move forward. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 30 February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2020-07-21,31,"bureaucratic; urged Council move out of the formal roles to have real, ordinary communications: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda. Comments read into the record: Stated it has been almost two months since Mali Watkins was arrested; other Councils around the Bay Area have taken steps toward reimagining public safety; justice delayed is justice denied; urged Council to take action to declare racism an emergency and take actions to counteract racism in the community: Carly Stadum-Liang, Alameda. Urged Council to release the Police Chief; discussed the detainment of Mali Watkins and the Police Chief: Seth Marbin, Alameda. Expressed support for some of the initial efforts made to address transforming Alameda's public safety; expressed concern about how the efforts are beginning; inquired the reason for no community engagement by the subcommittee, the purpose of the work done in the past four weeks and ways in which Council will amplify the needs and contributions of Black Alamedans: Savanna Cheer, Alameda. Expressed support for adding the voices of health care providers to the steering committee and that each steering subcommittee be comprised of 50% BIPOC members and compensated; stated there will be an increase in inclusive structures which support diverse participation: Jyothi Marbin, Alameda. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the City Manager address the committee selection process; stated this is the first attempt at an ambitious undertaking; stated Brown Act meetings can span a number of hours and be time consuming, including public comment; outlined the public requests for moving out of formal meeting roles; stated Council must remain respectful of community volunteers' time commitment; expressed support for stipends paid for participants and for meals being provided. Councilmember Vella stated direction and authorization was given by Council at previous meetings to allow stipends; expressed support for staff providing the selection process; instant change does not allow for a community process; a balance is being attempted; outlined correspondence received; stated there are issues with Council selecting committee members. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the City Attorney stated should any Councilmembers be involved in the selection process, the committee will be a Brown Act committee. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has a lot of faith in the steering committee reaching out and receiving applications; outlined Oakland City Council task force moving forward with speed and diligence on reimagining public safety; stated some items can be achieved quickly and others take more time. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 9 July 21, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf CityCouncil,2018-03-06,31,"The City Manager responded the issue cannot be brought back at the next meeting but would be included in the mid-cycle budget. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of accepting the reports. Councilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried a unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk and Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission March 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-03-06.pdf CityCouncil,2005-05-17,31,"TUESDAY- - -MAY 17, 2005- - -7:25 P.I M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint meeting at 7:35 p.m. Councilmember/Commissioner/Board Member deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present : louncilmembers / Commissioners / Board Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05-226CC/05-024CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting of May 3, 2005. Approved. (05-025CIC) Recommendation to approve an Amended Contract with Michael Stanton Architecture (MSA) by increasing the Contract amount an additional $40,000 for design review services for the proposed Civic Center Parking Garage Project. Accepted. ( 05-026CIC) Recommendation to receive and file revised Alameda West Strategic Retail Implementation recommendations. Received and filed. AGENDA ITEMS ( 05-027CIC) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to an Acquisition Agreement by which the Community Improvement Commission acquired an Affordable Housing Covenant from the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for thirty units of very low income housing at the Bachelor Officers' Quarters located within the Alameda Point Improvement Project. Commissioner/Board Member deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 1 Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,31,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2009-10-20,31,"The Planning Services Manager responded possibly; stated the initiative is a community plan; community plans differ under the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) and call for a single EIR upfront i all future phases can rely on the first EIR. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated have mitigation be in conflict with the language of the initiative would be possible; a dispute could occur on how to resolve the issue. The Planning Services Manager stated the Disposition and Development Agreement could be used to resolve the conflict. Councilmember/Board Member Matarrese stated a draft would be presented in August; the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) ends in July; inquired what would happen if the City does not finish and the ENA terminates. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the developer could stop at any point. Councilmember/Board Member Tam inquired whether Environmental Science Associates understands the issue, to which the Planning Services Manager responded definitely. Speaker Helen Sause, Home Ownership Makes Economic Sense (Homes) . Vice Mayor/Board Member deHaan stated the EIR could have been kicked off eight months ago and would have been good business. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated Oakland Chinatown and the City have an agreement that the City and developer would move forward with an EIR at the time the initiative qualified. Vice Mayor/Board Member deHaan stated a specific plan has not been approved; the ballot initiative was surprising. Councilmember/Board Member Tam stated the plan took two years of public meetings to develop. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the EIR would be consistent with the established timeline, to which the Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative. ADJOURNMENT (09-425 CC/ARRA/09-47 CIC) There being no further business Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-20,30,"Councilmember Knox White stated the art will not be installed; the proposed process occurs prior to payment; outlined the process for Public Art Commission (PAC) and Council approvals; stated Council would not see the proposals that fall within the City Manager authorization threshold; he is proposing Council be allowed to see the artwork and have a review period; expressed support for a Call for Review process; stated the process will likely not be used often; however, it might be helpful if installation of a problematic piece is proposed. Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about the proposal appearing to be a new process; stated that he is not opposed to the proposal, but the matter causes concern; inquired whether Council can gain a sense of the amount of projects that cost under $75,000. The Development Manager responded the public art fund has expended one $100,000 grant and the remainder fell below the $75,000 threshold; the remainder includes two to three public art grants and roughly 16 smaller grants. Councilmember Daysog noted many of the funding approvals fall below the approval threshold; stated that he dislikes giving up Council prerogative. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft question whether or not public art funds are always spent on a physical art installation; noted performance art can be funded; questioned whether non- physical art approvals will be presented to Council. Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the proposal to include expenditures for newly approved pieces of art; stated that he does not want to review nominal funding increase requests; all art projects, including non-physical art pieces, would be included; he does not expect the process to be used often; the proposal allows Council an opportunity to raise a hand and indicate a potential problem; the form of the art does not change the proposed review. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether any harm has occurred in the process; questioned the source for the proposal. The Economic Development Manager responded staff has returned to Council for change orders and small grant projects; stated certain project funding cannot progress without Council approval; outlined a $1,500 change order causing delay; stated Council review can take roughly six weeks; changes orders and small grants tend to cause the most delays. Councilmember Daysog stated the need for change orders is understood; new art should remain a Council prerogative. The City Manager recommended Council change the ordinance to include City Manager approval of purchased under $75,000 or 10% for change orders; original art and small grants must be considered by Council. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 23",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-24,30,"The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf CityCouncil,2019-03-19,30,"Councilmember Oddie stated the matter would return on April 2, 2019. ADJOURNMENT (19-183) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 1:37 a.m. in memory of Victor McElhaney and victims of the terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf CityCouncil,2019-07-16,30,"Clerk responded in the negative. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft closed the public hearing. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is opposed to the item. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (19-449) The City Manager made an announcement regarding funding related to the Woodstock Park fire. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (19-450) Consider Reducing the Number of Commission on Disability Members from Nine Due to Difficulty Achieving a Quorum for Meetings and Limited Staff Resources. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Knox White). Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (19-451) Councilmember Vella requested a moment of silence for former Supreme Court Justice and noted scholar of jurisprudence, John Paul Stevens. (19-452) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Public Art Commission and Rent Review Advisory Commission (RRAC). Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft Nominated Liz Rush and Kirstin Van Cleef for appointment to the Public Art Commission and the RRAC incumbents. ADJOURNMENT (19-453) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting in memory of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens at 11:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf CityCouncil,2021-03-16,30,"drivers more than others; the issue is about that, rather than all vehicle citations. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer raise good points; this is not the end of the discussion; she wants to see a robust discussion of UBI come back; the two year study in Stockton just came back with impressive results; valid concerns raised about fees and fines impacting someone with lower economic means can be part of the discussion. Councilmember Knox White stated that he would be happy to add a review of fines and penalties to the motion. Councilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. Councilmember Herrera Spencer questioned whether any of the motions address use of cameras; stated, if not, she would move approval of staff looking into the matter and providing an update on the status. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be repeated. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the motion is to receive an update from staff on the status of the License Plate Readers (LPRs) and cameras. Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the request is just about the status and whether it could be off agenda. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to have a conversation about whether or not the Council wants cameras; there have been multiple meetings. Vice Mayor Vella questioned whether the matter is properly agendized. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the report does address cameras as alternatives means of enforcement relying more on technology. Vice Mayor Vella stated it was part of the earlier motion, which was generalized; inquired why a specific motion is needed on the status; stated it was part of the first motion; questioned what Council is trying to achieve with the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 30 March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2017-11-07,30,"The Finance Director responded $3 million would be put towards OPEB and $8 million would go to pension. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Finance Director stated the goal is to add $2 million as a line item in the budget; any excess over 50% would be set aside for either pension or OPEB. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the City is on the hook for OPEB. The Finance Director responded the City is obligated to pay the pay as you go amount and the annual bill for OPEB. Councilmember Oddie inquired if the City is still on the hook for the pension and whether the City can just wash its hands of OPEB. The Finance Director responded that she believes the City would still owe the money. The City Manager stated the purpose of putting 25% into the 115 Trust every year is that can be used in down years to pay the City's portion of CalPERS. The Finance Director stated the goal is to assist with cash flow; should a downturn happen, the City will have time to deal with a shortage rather than making it an emergency. Councilmember Oddie inquired why the City would commit to the proposal. The City Manager responded the budget is approved by Council; stated the more the City pays into the unfunded liability, the more the City can save. Mayor Spencer stated if the item appears as a line item in future budgets, the Council could remove it if desired; inquired whether the money could be left where it is and when the budget is addressed the current Council could review all the recommendations and input from the community. The City Manager responded the model saves the City and taxpayers significantly. Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff is asking to have the money as a line item for future budgets, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the 30 year model is in the presentation to Council. The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated every city is concerned about the new CalPERS assumptions; in 3 years, the amount will increase dramatically; Council directed staff to look at how to address the issue in the long term, proactively; the proposal is staff's recommendation, but Council can make changes. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 30 November 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf CityCouncil,2022-02-01,30,"(22-042) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager, and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations: Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA), and Alameda Fire Chief's Association (AFCA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that regarding the Existing Litigation, staff provided information and Council provided direction, by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Abstain; Vella: Absent; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Abstain: 1. Absent: 1; regarding Potential Litigation and Real Property, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1; and regarding Labor, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 18, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf CityCouncil,2022-05-03,30,"the State does not agree with the City's approach to protect old housing stock; many people have been pushed out of other cities with new housing stock; she disagrees with the language in the draft HE stating: ""systemic reduction of the supply of affordable housing in Alameda;"" rent control will not apply to new rental units and condominiums; inquired where the condominium development in Alameda is located or whether any condominiums have been built in the past 10 years. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded all of the townhomes being built and sold are condominiums; stated many developers are not building condominium flats or apartment type buildings due to concerns over lawsuits; developers are building multi-family buildings which are held as rentals for at least 10 years until a statute runs; the units can potentially change into condominiums after 10 years; the City is not getting a lot of condominium multi-family housing that are not townhomes. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the starting price for the market rate townhomes in Alameda, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded over $900,000. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the price is not affordable; it is unfortunate that the State is pretending the housing units are affordable housing; many people do not qualify for the units; the housing units lead to gentrification; she will only agree to minimal upzoning; expressed support for the draft HE being rejected multiple times; inquired whether the City is advocating for permit waivers. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff does not want people to waive universal design requirements. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated waivers continued to be provided in Alameda. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she supports upzoning where needed in order to be responsible; local voters spoke on a measure that causes the City to jump through additional hoops in order to meet its RHNA obligation; the obligation is to the region and the people of Alameda; the obligation is to provide enough housing so that the region does not continue to lack housing such that the cost of housing continues to rise; the median house price in Alameda is over $1 million; there is not a lot of housing stock due to the lack of building over time; many people are getting priced out of the area and are unable to buy starter homes; the City needs to move forward with the draft HE and send it to HCD; expressed concern about moving backwards; stated the City can either build up or build out and lose the valued open space and parks; staff has tried to address a number of different concerns and find ways to build fairly throughout the City in a way that is going to ensure housing units being added are well integrated into the existing fabric. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports complying with State law; there are penalties for noncompliance; many funding opportunities for important projects and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 3, 2022 26",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-27,30,"Vice Mayor deHaan stated the basic concern is why there is binding arbitration for one union and not others; inquired how existing negotiations would be affected if the proposed resolution went forward. Joe Wiley, Labor Negotiator, responded the ground rule would be predicated on the existence of the Charter amendment; stated binding interest arbitration could be bargained if Council gave authority to do so; the issue would be a non-mandatory subject of bargaining. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the issue has been done for any other unions, to which Mr. Wiley responded not to his knowledge. The City Attorney stated parties could always elect to go to arbitration when there is a dispute; arbitration does not have to be mandatory or binding. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired why one bargaining unit would have something that others would not. Councilmember Tam responded fire fighters are precluded from striking. Mr. Wiley stated that fire fighters and police officers are precluded from striking; the Seal Beach decision stated having a strike that would create an impact to public health and safety would be unlawful and would be subject to being enjoin; the Seal Beach case does not apply to the City's circumstances; the Seal Beach case addressed a mandatory subject of bargaining in which an employee would be fired without review if engaged in the conduct [strike]; a mandatory subject of bargaining cannot be placed on the ballot without first having a meet and confer; two decisions have been handed down Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 30 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf CityCouncil,2010-04-20,30,"implementation of the density bonus provisions for affordable housing that have existed in State law and the ability to modify the City Charter absent a vote of the people; Council changed that in the middle of December; the dialogue that SunCal had was that the only way to implement a change to Measure A was to have a vote of the people; when the Code was modified, SunCal looked into whether the election could be pulled, but there is no ability to do so under the Elections Code. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated SunCal's attorney and the City Attorney/Legal Counsel should both provide a brief on whether the City fundamentally changed SunCal's ability to request a density bonus under State law by anything the City did in December; SunCal did not need an amendment to Measure A to request a density bonus and to get what is entitled to under a density bonus ordinance. Mr. Faye stated that is a good solution. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal went to the ballot for Measure A, a specific plan, and a development agreement; SunCal was aware of density bonus before. Mr. Faye stated most voters were in favor of the plan; however, most voters were opposed to the process; voters felt the effort was to usurp Council's ability to do its job; that he hopes the debate will be about the plan/plans and not about a discussion of process; now the process is normal. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal went to the ballot for Measure A [amendment], a specific plan and a development agreement; Mr. Faye is saying none of that would have been done if the City had a density bonus ordinance; density bonus was discussed leading up to Measure B; SunCal was aware of density bonus. Mr. Faye stated polls showed most voters were in favor of the plan, but opposed to the process; the debate now should be about the plan, not the process. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commission deHaan stated that his own polling indicated that the reasons the Measure was defeated were SunCal's financial inabilities, with 29 bankruptcies, transportation and traffic impacts, elimination of historical buildings, Measure A, density, environmental remediation, ballot box initiative deal, specific plan and environmental impact study; the back page of his handout has the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) proposal the SunCal agreed to, which spells out the requirements and what the City was looking for: 1,735 new homes and 3.4 million square feet office space; said criteria was set; SunCal came back continually saying that it does not pencil out. Mr. Faye stated SunCal came back in response to new information. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 10 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf CityCouncil,2007-12-04,30,"the few cities that has a reserve many cities are being hit hard; the League of California Cities cautioned all cities regarding Proposition 1A; it is easier for the Legislature to raid local government than it is to go up against the educational lobbyists. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City of Oakland was audited; $3 million is questionable on payrolli inquired whether an operational review or audit would be beneficial to Alameda. The Finance Director responded an operational review never hurts; there is a great deal of coordination between Human Resources and the Finance Department a review could be scheduled later in the fiscal year and there has been some practice with the conversion of the new payroll system. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated operational reviews were performed with significant findings for AP&T and the golf course. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that the City of Oakland did a performance audit; inquired what would be the cost for such an audit. The Finance Director responded a Request for Proposal (RFP) would need to be done. The City Manager/Executive Director stated AP&T and the golf course are enterprise funds and are different. The Finance Director stated a RFP could be issued in the spring. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated expenditures are 23% to 25% generally; some are lower; inquired whether some categories are over budgeted, such as Police Contract overtime, abandoned vehicle abatement, and advance life support. The Finance Director responded the Police Contract overtime does not follow a straight line and is based upon the need of outside persons to contract with the Police Department for overtime, such as for school dances. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is enough in the budget for additional animal shelter staffing and improvements. The City Manager/Executive Director responded a grant fund could be used; stated funding impacts would need to be identified. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 16 and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf CityCouncil,2010-03-16,30,"other stakeholders; SunCal is coming from a position of distrust within the community by its own choosing; that he does not see any humbleness. Mr. Faye stated that he has addressed the Council/Board Members/Commissioners because of the enormity of the situation; lifting the transparency will help everyone to avoid the misunderstanding; SunCal has an obligation to submit a transparent plan and looks forward to meeting the upcoming deadline as presented; rights will be reserved in a letter. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated SunCal spent $1,250,000 on the campaign; the community had to take on a poorly written initiative; that he hopes the community will never see a similar situation again; money seems to be more important than good will. Mr. Faye stated that is not SunCall's intent; SunCal has paid between $10 and $12 million on the project and has tried to be a good partner with the City; SunCal and D.E. Shaw are still willing and able to make contributions; most sponsors are gone, lenders are not giving land loans, and most equity partners are not putting out money. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated SunCal's proposal is to meet the deadline and submit an OEA by March 22, 2010 which can be processed by staff; that she does not understand how the process interplays with Council; inquired what is the best way to maximize opportunity for transparency. The City Attorney/Legal Council responded the process would be the same as for any development plan or submittal for entitlement; stated staff will review the matter, which will be forwarded on to the Planning Board once it is considered complete. Mr. Faye stated in the past, Council has formed a sub-committee to accompany staff in meetings to help develop a consensus; SunCal would love to have the opportunity to present responses and ideas directly to the Council/Board Members/Commissioners in an appropriate forum. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether a factual description could be published on the new submittal so that the community is informed; stated residents were interested and curious regarding the January 14th submittal. The City Attorney/Legal Council responded the submittal would be a public record. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the submittal could be summarized and presented at a Council meeting. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 5 Community Improvement Commission March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2019-12-18,30,"City Council Workshop Workshop Report Management Partners Have a clear understanding with the manager of the type and frequency of communication you prefer: While a fundamental value of city managers is to provide regular and complete information equally to each councilmember, councilmembers can vary significantly regarding the type and frequency of contact with the manager they desire. While the manager will use written reports in one form or another as a base line of information to all the members, it is important for the manager to understand your preference for how information should be communicated, including the frequency of personal contact. While some members prefer regular ""face-to-face"" contact with the city manager, others prefer less time-intensive information-sharing methods. While sharing the same information among all councilmembers, it is helpful for you and the manager to understand how much and what type of contact you prefer. Do your homework: It takes time and effort to be a successful councilmember. It makes the manager's and staff's job a lot easier if you have reviewed the reports and related materials provided to you prior to the city council meeting. This facilitates efficient meetings, accelerates decision-making and gives the impression that staff and council are working well as a team. Additionally, it will avoid you appearing unprepared to your fellow councilmembers, the staff and your constituents. Trust above all: As in all relationships, an effective city council/manager relationship must be based on trust. Other potential obstacles such as differing personalities, styles, philosophies, etc., can be overcome if there is mutual trust. Without trust, little else will be successful. Both parties need to treat each other with respect and be truthful and forthcoming in their dealings. No Surprises: Both the manager and council should do their best to make sure that important information is not first learned from others. While in this age of instant communication this is more difficult, and in some cases impossible, the parties should do their best to make sure that noteworthy information to which they are privy is not communicated to other organizational leaders by third parties (particularly the media). The manager needs to work hard to make sure that the council is not taken off guard while councilmembers should keep the city manager in the loop as well. ""Surprises"" can have a very negative impact on the working relationship in that it speaks directly to the trust issue. 10 - 24",CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-16,30,"The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded if the City initiates parking fees at ferry terminals, all revenue is received by the City; it is not split with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA). Expressed support for moving parking enforcement out of the Alameda Police Department (APD) and into Public Works and for ferry terminal parking fees: Zac Bowling, Alameda. Expressed support for moving parking enforcement from APD to Public Works; discussed the death of Mario Gonzales; expressed support for the matter tying into a larger transportation issue; urged traffic stops also be considered: Savanna Cheer, Alameda. Expressed support for parking management being part of the new program; stated that she is against the paid parking at ferry terminals; ferry tickets are expensive; expressed concern about increasing the cost for commuters; urged Council take the cost and burden into consideration; discussed accessibility: Carmen Reid, Alameda. Expressed support for the proposed changes being in line with parking minimums; urged City staff to think of a parking brokerage model for business districts; stated the City could make business parking pools more straight-forward, such as a branded City facility; expressed support for moving parking management out of APD and for looking at traffic management in a holistic manner: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda. Stated that he applauds the City's efforts to bring as many services as possible out from under the purview of APD; questioned who should pay for parking; stated General Fund parking maintenance payments are paid for by taxpayers; many pay for enforcement inactions; stated the City needs to separate parking problems from housing problems; parking as a function of Public Works is a great first step; urged Council to consider implementing street parking permits from 2:00 to 4:00 a.m. across the entire Island: Morgan Bellinger, Alameda. Stated California Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (CLETS) does not allow non- sworn law enforcement officials access to vehicle data; illegally parked vehicles cannot be checked; Public Works will be allowed to only ticket the vehicles and move along, when APD could have run the vehicle for its history; Public Works staff and the public will be put at risk with the inability to check license plates for crimes; staff will be at risk when approaching vehicles; questioned whether Public Works will choose not to ticket illegally parked bicycles; expressed concern about vehicles double-parking and the amount of staff needed for towed vehicles; stated that he is against paid parking at Sea Plan Lagoon Ferry Terminal: Jim Strehlow, Alameda. Expressed support for the matter; stated the fewer people on the street with guns in the community, the better; she does not support paid parking at the ferry terminal: Jenice Anderson, Alameda. Stated BikeWalk Alameda strongly supports the staff recommendation, especially for paid parking at the ferry terminal; paid parking will be during the week; urged support for anything to help capture costs of taxpayers subsidizing driving in Alameda: Denyse Trepanier, BikeWalk Alameda. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether sworn Officers currently check parking Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2021 19",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-10,30,"take away public open space, but she will not vote against the project because of the change; she agrees with the Mayor regarding the 50/50 rental/for sale split. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she does not like the idea of eliminating 1,900 square feet of open space. Councilmember Oddie stated that he would prefer to keep the open space, but he would like the project to pass unanimously. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of calling the question. The City Attorney stated the Council needs to certify the EIR. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of certifying the EIR [adoption of the resolution]. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of calling the question. Mayor Spencer stated that she could just call the question. Councilmember Oddie withdrew his motion to call the question. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council could do a substitution motion. The City Attorney responded the Mayor called the question. Mayor Spencer stated Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft needs to vote yes or no. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested to be passed over. The City Clerk stated a roll call vote is alphabetical; stated that the order can be done differently if Council desires to do so. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there could be discussion, to which Mayor Spencer responded in the negative; stated the question has already been called; stated that she is happy to vote yes. Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer their names be called before Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft. On the call for the question on the original motion, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: Aye. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf OpenGovernmentCommission,2015-02-02,30,"Vice Chair Foreman provided an example: recommend to Council under that the Commission's jurisdiction should be expanded; stated the Commission is called Open Government but the actual grant of authority is Sunshine Ordinance; other aspects of the law pertain to open government and the Commission's role should be expanded. The City Clerk stated the Commissioners need to provide the item greater than the seven days ahead of [publication] time; that she would indicate that it is coming from the Commissioner so the other Commissioners understand it is not staff generated. Commissioner Dieter stated it is a little bit more free flowing than the City Council, to which the City Clerk responded the City Council has an extensive Council referral process but the Commission does not have that. Commissioner Dieter inquired when Commissioners have referrals, should it have a staff report. The City Clerk responded typically, staff would want to wait to get direction from the whole Commission before putting too much work into the matter; if the rest of the Commission does not agree with going in that direction; stated it is easier for staff to get direction from the whole Commission. The Assistant City Attorney stated it is similar to a referral; if a Commissioners wants to bring something forward, they would communicate it to the City Clerk; it would then appear under Commissioner Communications; the Commission would have a chance to talk about it because it would be noticed; then if there is support to bring something back, staff would do it; if there is not support, it does not go anywhere. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Aguilar adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 30",OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2016-11-01,30,"the bus stop in front of their house attended; staff came up with a plan to obtain a handicapped parking space in close vicinity of the house to allow the elderly owner of the house to have access to a parking space. (16-582) Councilmember Oddie stated that he attended the community awards; Stop Waste.org passed the second reading of the revised plastic ban ordinance. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf CityCouncil,2018-06-05,30,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (18-346) Richard Bangert, Alameda, stated clear direction was not provided to staff about what to do to get a bond measure on the ballot; there seems to be a trend in the Bay Area of admiring the problem of climate change; the only way anything is going to get done is if money is appropriated; thinking the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will help is dreaming; the City has to pay for climate adaptation itself; staff should be given direction at a future meeting; the matter should go to the voters. The Acting City Manager stated the matter can be discussed when the Climate Action Plan is addressed in March or sooner if Council wishes. Councilmembers expressed support for the matter returning sooner. COUNCIL REFERRALS Mayor Spencer stated that she would call Councilmember Oddie's referral next since there are two speakers. (18-347) Resolution No. 15389, ""Supporting Alameda Rank-and-File Employees Post a Janus V. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees) Supreme Court Decision."" Adopted. (Councilmember Oddie) Councilmember Oddie made brief comments. Expressed support for the resolution; discussed the positive working relationship with the City; stated the resolution confirms meet and confer rights: Al Fortier, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1245. Discussed the me too and the civil rights movements; stated labor is also being attacked; outlined jurisdictions which have taken action or will take action on the matter; asked Council to support the resolution: Josie Camacho, Alameda Labor Council. Councilmember Matarrese stated the timing is apropos; he does not have any issue with the resolution; the City has used collective bargaining and good faith negotiations, which has provided a good framework; direction should be given to staff ensure the City is prepared to address the changes in the law should the ruling come down as expected; staff is not directly involved in membership cards; assurance should be provided that the City will keep the principle of collective bargaining and good faith negotiations, which is a standard that has served the City well. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council should be careful not to step out of its lane; that she would support the resolution if the further resolved language is revised. Vice Mayor Vella stated removing any of the further resolved language would undermine the spirit of the resolution; noted Emeryville, Alameda County and San Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 30 June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf CityCouncil,2006-10-17,30,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY - -OCTOBER 17, 2006- -7:25 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:50 p.m. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. . ] (*06-062 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting and Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on October 3, 2006. Approved. (*06-063 CIC) Resolution No. 06-148, ""Approving the Report to the City Council on the Proposed Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project, Authorizing Transmittal of Said Report to the City Council of the City of Alameda, and Consenting to Holding a Joint Public Hearing with the City Council. Adopted; and (*06-511 CC) Resolution No. 14028, ""Receiving the Report to City Council Prepared for the Proposed Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and Consenting to Holding a Joint Public Hearing with the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda. Adopted. AGENDA ITEM (06-512CC/06-064 CIC) Public Hearing to consider certification of a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) approval of a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, a Development Agreement Amendment, two new Development Agreements, a Disposition Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 1 Community Improvement Commission October 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf CityCouncil,2020-03-03,30,"Councilmember Oddie stated that there are many projects for the Recreation and Parks Director; expressed support for a date being included in the budget request. Councilmember Vella expressed support for the item to return in a timely manner. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated should the item be included in the budget, the project can return in the Fall. Councilmember Vella stated direction should include background work as well. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated background work is needed in order to include an item in the mid-cycle budget. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he is unclear about the RFP; there will be engineers and consultants hired at some point. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council is beyond the scope of item. The City Attorney responded Council can give direction related to timing; Council should avoid budgeting or deciding to budget for an engineer; Council can present a deadline for a project milestone. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about date certain provisions. The City Attorney stated Council may provide prioritization. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he would like the motion clarified; stated that Council cannot make a decision based on funding; he would like to know what is not being done; questioned whether a proposal with funding and a timeline can be provided for moving the project to the next phase. The City Manager stated that Council can request a consultant come back as a priority based on funding. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for prioritizing DePave Park; stated there is long-standing community support; the item has been prioritized; the RFP should be issued efficiently; expressed support for moving forward. The Recreation and Parks Director stated that she is happy to bring back a plan on DePave Park and include the steps needed, funding, and timeline to Council in June or July; more funding sources for the aquatic center might be known at that time; decisions can be made related to staffing for projects; an update can be provided based on staffing and potential delays related to budget approvals; other projects will be delayed Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 3, 2020 27",CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-19,30,"The City Clerk requested clarification that the meeting will end regardless of item discussion by midnight. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie stated unless there is a vote to overrule. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. Councilmembers Daysog and Oddie recused themselves and left the meeting. Expressed support for commercial slow streets that support social distancing; urged all forms of alternate transportation be treated equally; stated proper treatment of AC Transit busses are measured by three goals: safety, accessibility and operational performance; urged Council to pay particular attention to bus stops and temporarily install bus bulbs or boarding islands: Robert delRosario, AC Transit. Public comment read into record: Discussed her experience with transportation in Alameda; expressed concern about the slow streets plan; stated implementation will be based on community response; urged safer streets for Alameda; stated public transit is essential to reducing the carbon footprint: Ingrid Ballmann, Alameda. Urged Council to support slow streets; stated the pilot program is limited in a number of ways; expressed support for implementing strategies which allow small businesses to open without endangering the health of customers or staff: Cyndy Johnson, Alameda. Stated Alameda could be ranked with the best European pedestrian plazas; urged people to be prioritized; discussed visuals: Pat Potter, Bike Walk Alameda. Expressed support for the existing slow streets; urged Council to expand the slow streets project and re-configure street space in business districts to allow safe and separated bike infrastructure on Park Street and Webster Street: Denyse Trepanier, Alameda. Expressed support for closing some streets to allow restaurants to use sidewalk space or lanes for outdoor seating; noted restaurant business is episodic; urged outdoor dining as a safer option; urged Council to find creative ways to allow restaurants and stores to open: Olaf Faaland, Alameda. Stated temporary street reconfigurations involve reusing traffic lanes and parking spaces; discussed removing parking spaces on Central Avenue and Webster Street; Special Meeting Alameda City Council 21 May 19, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-19.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-11-28,30,"ITEM 2-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 28, 2018, 6:30 PM I've had problems with mine, but I've luckily been able to get help and get back home because of AC Transit or somebody else who really went out on a limb and took care of it for me. So what I would like to do just in this announcement thing, could we put it on the next agenda? And it'd only be like five minutes or something like that of trying to work up something in the county again and Okay. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: So we actually do have it as part of our agenda. It reached Laurie as well that people are having trouble getting home. So, perfect prelude into our next meeting. This is a huge issue that was cancelled, this program that Arnold is speaking of where the fire department will not come and pick you up and take you home. There's not a current system. And I think this is something that we really need to look into and try to help address so that people are not stranded when their wheelchair or other mobility device fails them when they're out on the streets. Anto Aghapekian: Two or three meetings ago, we had a presentation about emergency help for people, if somebody faints on the street, there is an emergency department in the city that goes and picks you up. Wasn't there a lady that gave a representation like that to us, about three meetings ago, two meetings ago? Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: I know we've spoken about a number of transportation items whether it be the taxi or the Paratransit or the shuttle. When we're talking about the bikes, and maybe they would prevent you from going down a curb ramp or something. So it's definitely come up, but I don't think we've had a concrete solution. Because they could submit something to the city, but that request is not something that's immediate. The see click fix is something that you guys work on over a period of time. It's not like an emergency service. If anyone has any other comments on that. Susan Deutsch: Well, we did have a presentation just about emergencies in general, like if there's an earthquake or some kind of major emergency in the city, somebody presented that there's a plan for that, but it didn't include somebody getting stuck with their wheelchair, just going out on So yeah, we have to Anto Aghapekian: I brought that up, that issue. I did bring it up; what happens if a person in a wheelchair is stuck because of the curb, the sidewalk or whatever, and they said that they did not have any services for people who are in wheelchairs or they're handicapped. And I brought it up especially because they were assisting other people, but for some reason, not people in wheelchairs. That's why I brought it up. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: So maybe we can brainstorm and look into things between now and our next meeting since it is going to be a topic. And maybe, since you're connected with the other disability commissions, see if they have anything. Arnold Brillinger: I was going to suggest that, let's say we can't do it this meeting because it's not on the agenda, but for this group to say ""Yes, let's look into that,"" and get people from the other groups to get together and approach the county and say, ""This is what we can do,"" or, ""how is this funded,"" or find out all the things about it. So it sounds to me like the same lady probably called you or whatever, and she's probably watching right now too, so. 03/13/19 Page 30 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-11-28.pdf CityCouncil,2017-06-06,30,"The Finance Director responded in the negative; stated $11.3 million is a combination of OBEP and pension funds. Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie inquired whether the projected ending balance for the OPEB trust comes from on the All Funds Budget Summary Fund Balance on page B-5. The Finance Director responded $7.2 million is the projected number; additional contributions are expected. Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie inquired about the difference between $7.2 million to $11.373. The Finance Director responded the difference is from an Internal Service Fund. Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie stated the City will have over $20.4 million in the fund where there was previously $300,000 two and a half years ago; the City is being fiscally conservative; praised City staff. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired what dollar amounts will be transferred into the OPEB and PARS trust accounts. The Finance Director responded $11, ,143,000, not including the contractual obligation of $250,000. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired how much is being spent from the reserves. The Finance Director responded $6,043,000 comes from reserves previously authorized by Council in 2015; $5.1 million is based on direction from the workshop that was held in May. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he likes the idea of a mid-term review to see how the City is tracking progress; he also likes that the projections are conservative. Councilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft stated with good discipline and grant funding the purchase of the parcels from Union Pacific should be possible. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested a projection of the effect of the City's and employees contributions over time to lower the OPEB liability; stated reviewing where the City stands with and without the contributions would be worthwhile; Council and the public would benefit from a graphic showing how actuals are tracking against projections. The City Manager stated the initial analysis from the CalPers financial expert addressed Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency 4 to the Community Improvement Commission June 6, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,30,"The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the same strategy used two years ago to meet the regional housing need will need to be applied to additional sites; the zoning code will not be new, however, new zoning will be added to sites in Alameda; the zoning can be changed to multi-family overlay as an adjustment to C2, and both are simple to achieve in removing the multi-family prohibition and allowing at least 30 units per acre; Council may amend the zoning or provide a multi-family overlay; the effect and result will be the same. Stated that she supports the staff recommendation; urged Council to prepare a resolution of intent to begin the Housing Element process consistent with the language listed in the staff report; expressed support for the Housing Element process in Alameda over the last two cycles; urged Council continue to submit conforming Housing Elements; she would like Council to do everything required in order to submit a Housing Element consistent with State law including using the multi-family overlay and perform zoning changes where necessary; discussed Article 26 being in conflict with State Housing Element law; urged Council to not appeal the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) designation for Alameda: Sophia DeWitt, Alameda Resident and East Bay Housing Organization (EBHO). Discussed Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements concerning the side inventory; stated some of the areas are high resources; lawyers and past Councilmembers have stated Article 26 is in conflict with State law; he is favor of declaring such conflict in the resolution; California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has not responded to the City's request for comments made by Paul McDougall; it is unique to see such huge MF overlays; questioned the reason not to up-zone underlying zoning and codes instead of having large MF overlays; expressed concern for issues with the resulting wording; discussed the proposed resolution from Councilmember Herrera Spencer; he does not think the proposal will meet AFFH rules; urged Council review a presentation from Paul McDougall; RHNA appeals are often a waste of time and staff resources: Zac Bowling, Alameda. Expressed support for Alameda making a good faith effort to meet the RHNA numbers; stated much work is still needed; urged Council to focus City staff time on the work at hand and not to waste resources on appealing the City's RHNA numbers to Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); there is only one way to reduce Alameda's RHNA numbers in forcing the allocation onto other Bay Area cities; the Housing Opportunities Site Draft is fascinating to read; noted R1 zoning is not mentioned in the Opportunity Site list; urged the City to think of ways to allow all zones contribute to different housing sizes over time: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda. Stated the Housing Element for Alameda should be compliant with State law; the Housing Element should be aligned with values, equity and justice in the statement ""everybody belongs here;"" the City will not know what has been lost in the consequence of redlining due to certain housing types being explicitly disallowed; there have been Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-05,30,"City and the residents. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie would like to focus on the dispensaries and onsite consumption; stated the list is too long; she would like to break it into parts to address the dispensaries and onsite consumption first. Councilmember Oddie responded the matter may not require an ordinance; he does not want to shut the door on any options. Vice Mayor Vella requested clarification about whether the staff presentation in September will include adult recreational use, not just medical use. The City Manager responded staff will include both. Vice Mayor Vella stated everything tends to be on Alameda Point; inquired whether Council would be able to review mapping and proposals for zoning for possible locations; stated her concern is location and options. The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff needs direction from Council prior to providing possible locations; selection of a location will be difficult. Vice Mayor Vella inquired what the impact will be on the work currently being done on Councilmember Oddie's referral if the ban is lifted. The City Manager responded the consultants are reviewing the current medical marijuana ordinance and the State regulations, which will be part of the discussion in September. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff is also reviewing labor relative to businesses of certain sizes which cities can regulate further than State regulations. The City Manager responded that staff is currently reviewing State regulations. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she visited Harborside, which makes deliveries, the City is not cutting off patients who live in Alameda; regulations need to be put into place to ensure the City maintains local control; she understands the no smoking ordinance is silent on medical marijuana. Councilmember Matarrese stated questions still need to be answered so he does not see a reason not to have the referral go forward as direction; he would like to ensure the City makes an informed decision using experience from other cities; he would like to take into account that cannabis is still illegal federally; inquired whether the industry is a cash industry, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated the impacts of an all cash industry need to be reviewed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 29 July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf CityCouncil,2006-12-05,30,"the preferred provider to the extent allowed by the law; and 6) amend the Public Benefits schedule to include that one of the public benefits state: ""visually enhances surrounding areas which represent a key Alameda gateway."" Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated Lowe's and Best Buy are examples of why retail cannot be limited to 50,000 square foot. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the leakage study shows smaller footprint type retail would capture sales leakage. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the leakage study assumes that Target would be at the Alameda Towne Center; the study would show different leakage in the event that Target does not go to the Alameda Towne Center; the idea is to be complimentary and not competitive. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated higher end tenants are usually not over 50,000 square feet. louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he is not arguing for big box stores he would rather have smaller, boutique- type stores. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated retail mix, leakage factors, Council briefing, and business associations are important. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Catellus is willing to come back to the CIC in the event of deviation from the table. Mr. Marshall stated Catellus would be in default of all development documents if the leakage study were not followed; tenant discussions would be a challenge in a public forum. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated Council could receive a confidential Off Agenda Report if Catellus does not comply; the matter would not need to come to Council for public discussion. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Catellus has a development in Fremont. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 19 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-18,30,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether a new owner could choose not build maritime commercial. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the language is in the Master Plan. The Community Development Director stated the permitted uses are defined in the Amended Reuse Plan; other contemplated uses would need to return for another entitlement process. Mayor Spencer requested clarification on the word commercial in the language. The Community Development Director responded it means commercial manufacturing, not retail. Mayor Spencer inquired whether it is not commercial maritime. The Community Development Director responded it is broader than just maritime; manufacturing includes research and development and advanced manufacturing, which is permitted in the MX zoning. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Bay Ship & Yacht is proposing commercial maritime. The Community Development Director responded Bay Ship & Yacht is proposing a combination of uses. Mayor Spencer inquired whether protecting the maritime use is not being built into the proposal. The Community Development Director responded the use is a permitted use; stated a maritime business is proposing to purchase the property; the project addresses a lot of issues, such as jobs. Mayor Spencer stated the plan has many changes. The City Manager stated staff is being transparent about the agreement; cautioned the Council on being so restrictive regarding the types of uses, which would makes the project less financially viable for Bay Ship & Yacht; stated the economy, technology and what maritime is would all change over time. Mayor Spencer stated that the description staff used in the report is waterfront maritime commercial. The Community Development Director responded the term is general; stated the definition is in the proposed amendment to the Master Plan; the language will be in the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-16,30,"Mayor Spencer inquired if there are any objections from Council, to which Council responded there are no objections. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the form would not change the ordinance, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested Committee hearings and decisions be clarified; stated if a tenant has requested the Committee to review a rent increase, the Committee's decision will be non-binding on the parties; there needs to be a sentence that explains it more clearly; a tenant could initiate the RRAC proceeding but the landlord still has the right to increase rent above 5%. The Community Development Director responded for rent increases of 5% or less, the case has to be initiated by the tenant; the RRAC decision is non-binding and there is no recourse to a hearing officer, but there is recourse to the City Council. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council only gave the right to go to binding arbitration for increases above 5%. The Community Development Director stated language could be inserted that for increases of 5% or less the Committee's decision will be non-binding on the parties. Mayor Spencer stated it could say for rent increases of less than 5% arbitration is not available. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff work out the wording for clarification. The Assistant City Attorney stated the idea is nothing would prevent a tenant and landlord from arriving at a rent increase less than the maximum rent increase; nothing precludes reaching an agreement before the Committee hearing. Councilmember Oddie stated the tenant can request Committee review of a rent increase pursuant to Section 6-58.70, which says the tenant may request the Committee review rent increase under 5%. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the decision is non-binding. Councilmember Oddie stated language could be inserted into Section 6-58.70. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is agreeable to said suggestion. The Community Development Director responded the section would read: if the tenant has requested the Committee to review the rent increase pursuant to Section 6-58.70, the Committee's decision will be non-binding on the parties. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf CityCouncil,2009-02-07,30,"The City Manager responded in the affirmative. The Interim Finance Director noted a 1079/1082 bond would be a pension obligation bond (POB) and an OPEB bond is a benefit obligation bond (BOB) . Councilmember Matarrese stated the City Attorney indicated validation could take three to six months inquired whether Council could give direction to start now. The City Attorney stated the validation process would be started right away. Mayor Johnson stated the direction includes comments from Vice Mayor deHaan and Councilmember Matarrese about the upfront size [bond amount and projecting out the whole 30 years; borrowing $75 million for OPEB would be reviewed. Councilmember Matarrese stated $97 million could be borrowed, which is $75 million for OPEB and $23 million for 1079/1082; multiple options should be reviewed 1) a 1079/1082 bond, 2) an OPEB bond, and 3) bonds for both the OPEB and 1079/1082 plan. Mayor Johnson stated $75 million is based on 4.5% interest the amount needed would be greater if the 4.5% interest rate cannot be met. Vice Mayor deHaan stated pay-as-you-go increases 10-14% per year ; the City has to react. Council thanked the Interim Finance Director, Finance Department staff, the City Manager and Department Heads. * * (09-061A) Recommendation to accept the Financial Report for the Second Fiscal Quarter - October, November and December 2008. [Note: The item was discussed at beginning of meeting see Page 1] Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Manager provided closing comments. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 30 February 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-07,30,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the proposed sunset. Councilmember Daysog stated the resolution would be adopted; however, a sunset clause would be included in order to re-visit the matter in five years to determine whether or not it should continue. Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the proposed addition includes continuing what has historically been done for each new Chief; stated the City has essentially given each new Chief who has come from the outside over the last 10 to 15 years the same benefit; the benefit is not new; expressed support for a timeline being added if the addition result in a vote. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for sunset clause. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned how many Chiefs from the outside have been hired in the City over the last 10 to 15 years; stated the City recently hired a Fire Chief from an outside agency; other Fire Chiefs have all come from within Alameda Fire Department (AFD); the last three Police Chiefs prior to the current Police Chief have all come from Alameda Police Department (APD). Councilmember Knox White stated the external candidates that have come in have been offered the benefit due to the problem of hiring from outside agencies and losing a major benefit; expressed support for having a wide pool of candidates. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the breakdown of promotions within the Fire and Police Departments; stated the policy is not that old; the City has not often had candidates from other organizations. Vice Mayor Vella stated the City has still had applicants despite the existing policy in place; top candidates have still accepted the position; expressed concern about having a policy if people arrive from other agencies and immediately negotiate; there have been calls to limit or de-fund some positions and the expenditure is significant; expressed support for a discussion relative to the City budget; stated that she is concerned about existing negotiations with units; she would like to take into account the executive compensation being applied to top positions relative to line staff; she will not be supporting the matter. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like a time limit on the matter due to a historic growing through the ranks for positions; he is confident in the pipeline created; outlined previous Police and Fire Chiefs moving through the ranks from within the organization; stated that he understands the idea of encouraging people to come to the organization from outside; he is biased towards the system which is in place; he is willing to experiment if it makes for good staff, such as the incoming Fire Chief; however, a time limit should be placed in order to revisit the matter. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the benefit is not a condition of the prospective Fire Chief's Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 22",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-05-09,30,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MUTES OF Wednesday May 9, 2018 6:30 p.m. on East Bay Transit. So that's good. And of course, the shuttle is open to everybody, including Arthur, because he rode it. Arnold Brillinger: And I just had a couple more things on announcements. The 4th of July parade, that was part of what I was going to announce and let Laurie know, so that she can tell Victoria and make sure that we're not, don't have way too many people and they're hanging out the windows because the windows don't open. Arnold Brillinger: Okay. And the other thing that I want to talk about a little bit was SRAC, that's Service Review Advisory Committee for East Bay Paratransit, and at their last meeting, they had a couple of presentations; one was a video done in-house, trying to let their staff know the ones that is scheduled, know all the kinds of things that happen in the life of a driver. So they presented that. And also they had new buses that they're going to be encouraging the providers to buy that have the lift door in the middle of a bus right behind the front door. And those are very good because right now they've got the lift doors in the back, and the only place for wheelchairs is right in the back, and it is murderous on your hiney and your back and other parts of your body. So they're looking into some of these new buses and they'll be better. And also at the meeting, it was presented that their service is getting a bit better. They were having so many problems because they couldn't keep drivers. The economy is too good. And so as soon as somebody had some experience, they'd go off to AC Transit for twice the money. Arnold Brillinger: But they've got better incentives now to keep drivers. And I also went to the Momentum Expo at the Ed Roberts Campus, and they had a variety of speakers and presentations there. And also the reason I was right here at, like it's 6:32, was because I went to the forum in Berkeley, and it had our friend, Karen Nakamura and Silvia Yee, who is a lawyer in disability rights, and they conducted this forum and it's very interesting. And again, it's just like with Alex, we need to keep these things in mind, because we normally don't think of disability and this, or disability and that. And I think Karen tried to show us that last month, how all those things intersect. So, that's very much it. Beth Kenny: Thank you, Commissioner Brillinger. Roloff, do you have any? Jennifer Roloff: I was just going to say, I was looking it up on my phone, May 19th, the Alameda Point Collaborative is having their annual Farm-To-Table Fundraiser. It's an amazing luncheon, and all of the food is sourced from the farm where the residents of Alameda Point Collaborative live, and they have a presentation from some of the folks from Alameda Point Collaborative and all the funds go to their programs. It's not cheap, I think it's like $95 to attend. I don't know if anyone can go and we have budget. You're on SSHRB, so if you want to go, I know you're so busy, but if we could send someone and be reimbursed, I think I'm out of town, but I encourage you to go. Susan Deutsch: What's the date again? Jennifer Roloff: May 19th. It's an amazing fundraiser. The food is all locally sourced; I don't think the protein is, but everything else is from their garden or from Alameda, and it really feels good to be there. So spread the word. If you can make it, that would be great. I'm still trying, myself. 05/30/18 Page 30 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-05-09.pdf CityCouncil,2007-01-02,30,"recommendation on the budget and allocation of funds to Council. Vice Mayor Tam responded in the affirmative; thanked Councilmember Matarrese for the clarification. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the measurement-triggering device would be included. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded language would come back that states that the evaluation criteria would be developed by the Transportation Commission and Planning Board and would not be part of the DA that comes back to Council in two weeks. On the call for the question, Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (07-014) - Councilmember deHaan requested that the Police Department look at the activity occurring across the Fruitvale Bridge; stated campers are moving into the direct access to Alameda. Mayor Johnson stated the Alameda Police Department has worked on the issue with Oakland in the past; the matter needs to be revisited. ( 07-015) Vice Mayor Tam stated she would like the City to reflect that condolences were extended to Councilmember Gilmore in the passing of her father-in-law, Carter Gilmore; Mr. Gilmore has been an icon for civil rights in the Oakland area. (07-016) Councilmember deHaan requested that the meeting be adjourned in a moment of silence for former President Gerald Ford and Carter Gilmore. ADJOURNMENT (07-017) Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting in recognition of the national day of mourning for the passing of former President Gerald Ford and in recognition of Councilmember Gilmore's father- - in-law's passing; stated Carter Gilmore recently had a park named after him; the park naming was a recognition of his service in Oakland which affected the Bay Area region; noted Mr. Gilmore was Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 30 January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf CityCouncil,2005-07-19,30,"(05-367) - Susan Potter, Alameda, requested guidance in procuring a permit for a mobile vendor to do business in the City; stated many companies do business without a permit. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the request was for a mobile business at the dog park, to which Ms. Potter responded in the affirmative. The Acting City Manager stated the proposal is to utilize a space at the dog park and other parks; the Recreation and Park Commission is working on a comprehensive policy and did not want to address the request as part of the policy; the section of the Municipal Code dealing with rolling stores could be amended; if the Council desires, staff could work with the Planning Board to draft an ordinance making amendments to address the issue. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council has to direct that the matter be referred to the Planning Board; noted issues are unknown, for example merchants might oppose changes. The Acting City Manager suggested the Planning Board consider the matter. Mayor Johnson concurred with the suggestion. Councilmember deHaan stated the issue of how long a business could remain on pubic property would need to be addressed. The Acting City Manager stated rolling stores can only use the public right-of-way, not standing locations. Councilmember deHaan noted Oakland allows rolling vendors on private property. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Planning Board should review the matter. Ms. Potter noted nothing is being done about the rolling vendors that are currently operating in the City without permits. Mayor Johnson stated the City might need to start doing enforcement. (05-368) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed speeding vehicles. (05-369) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated non-food services, such as bicycle repair, should be considered when addressing mobile businesses; noted market factors, such as demand, would not support Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 30 July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf CityCouncil,2016-01-05,30,"The City Attorney suggested staff could bring the matter back. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a tenant would receive relocation assistance if they are required to move out for no cause reasons and later finds out the new tenant is paying more. The Community Development Director responded said proposal was raised by Alamedans for Fair Rents; stated the staff recommendation is to have tenants evicted for no cause receive relocation assistance regardless of what happens to the next tenant. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Daysog might have been thinking about the new tenant receiving some money back for overpaying; staff should refine the matter a little more; that she likes the direction; inquired whether staff could enumerate what the fee would pay when the fee study returns. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog stated a tenant given a 10% rent increase would go through the RRAC process; inquired whether the tenant would not qualify for relocation assistance if they go through the arbitration process and the outcome is still 10%, but the tenant has to move out because they cannot afford the increase. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie stated Vice Mayor Matarrese hit the issue on the head; evicting tenants to raise rents to market rate is the problem the City is trying to fix; staff has to come back with something that fixes the problem; new tenants should get something specific, such as the same rent as the previous tenant or a 5% rent increase above the previous tenant. The Community Development Director stated staff understands and will be as precise as possible. Mayor Spencer stated staff is doing a great job and should proceed. The Community Development Director stated staff heard consensus to allow no cause evictions with a huge disincentive; staff will review whether there should be no rent increase or an increase of no more than 5%; everyone supports approving a capital improvement plan for the substantial rehabilitation eviction category; the plan will come back within 45 days with the program components. Mayor Spencer stated that is correct. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with the concept. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 30 January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-15,30,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (APFA) MEETING TUESDAY- -JUNE 15, 2010- -7:01 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 12:21 a.m. Roll Call - Present: Authority Members deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. Consent Calendar (10-03) Minutes of the Annual APFA Meeting of March 16, 2010 and the Special APFA Meeting of June 1, 2010. Approved. Authority Member deHaan moved approval of the minutes. Authority Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (10-04) Resolution No. 10-20, ""Authorizing the Issuance of Its 2010 Local Agency Refunding Revenue Bonds (Harbor Bay CFD and Marina Village AD), and Approving Documents and Authorizing Actions in Connection Therewith.' Adopted. Authority Member Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with amendment to include 6% present value savings. Authority Member deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Agenda Items None. Oral Communications None. Board Communications None. Regular Meeting Alameda Public Financing Authority June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,30,"94619 KEMARIN@GMAIL.COM Mife LARRY 94571 LARKY) JOKENO@GMAIL NCT L.g Marina Diaz 94501 Sens Susan G. 94501 m succet Kentine leckson 94501 n know Mana Bower 94501 Member Published and promoted by the Alameda Happy Tennis Group at Fairfield Tennis Complex When complete, please return to: The Alameda Happy Temnis Oroup at Fairtield Tennis Complex or amail directly to For more info please join our Facebaok Group Wa may containd you for tather on this ISSUO but wn will not uso your information for any olher purpose or sham E with any other ontity,",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf CityCouncil,2008-10-07,30,"geotechnical and environmental information. Ms Potter said that it is a provision that we do own any and all materials prepared or commissioned by the developer. Member Tam motioned approval of the 2nd Amendment to the ENA, including approving a transfer of the ownership interest in SCC Alameda Point LLC to Cal Land Venture, LLC, subject to the following modifications 1. modify mandatory milestone for submittal of Final Business Plan and draft Master Plan by December 19, 2008, in order to incorporate public comment and to have a meaningful work product 2. get a status report at least 30 days in advance whether or not we need an extension on the mandatory milestone regarding finalization of the Navy term sheet on July 31, 2009. The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes : Ayes : 5, Noes: 0 , Abstentions: 0. Member Gilmore requested an update of the financial analysis of DE Shaw given the tremendous change in market. The Board directed staff to provide this update and staff affirmed. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 10:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC and Irma Glidden, Secretary ARRA The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 11 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-06-15,30,"Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (21-436) Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Historical Advisory Board, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, Planning Board and Public Art Commission. Not heard. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:00 a.m. with items continued to July 6, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2021 21",CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-02,30,"The Community Development Director stated Los Gatos has rent control at 5%. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is agreeable to staff's recommendation. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he agrees with staff's recommendation. The Community Development Director requested Council direction on data collection. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he agrees with staff's recommendation; clarified anything that goes to RRAC would be tracked. Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff's recommendation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated data collection is needed; she agrees with staff's recommendation. Councilmember Daysog inquired how many cases currently come to the RRAC for 5% rent increases. The Community Development Director stated there are not a lot, but it will change if the ordinance is passed because it will be a mandatory. Councilmember Daysog stated in the first year, the City should collect data on everything that goes to RRAC. Mayor Spencer stated 4 members of the Council are in agreement with staff's recommendation. Mayor Spencer stated the first reading of the ordinance will be on February 16th Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like to see clear written standards and guidelines for the RRAC and arbitrator regarding what documentation a landlord is required to provide and when a tenant is requesting lowered rent to ensure that the parties are dealt with in consistently; inquired whether a property manager could attend the RRAC meeting in case an owner could not attend. The Community Development Director stated staff understood from Council that it would need to be someone with owner interest or someone who has legally binding interest. Mayor Spencer inquired if the housing provider does not agree with the Committee's decision, the housing provider must file a petition to consider the new rent increase; if no petition is filed, the rent increase is void. The Community Development Director responded the Mayor is correct. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 29 February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2020-07-21,30,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the size of each subcommittee needs to be determined; members of the community wanted time to discuss issues and sensitive topics; noted the committee would not meet in secret. Councilmember Vella stated there are a couple aspects to consider; one is timing; meetings having agendas would hamper the ability to have a number of smaller meetings with various groups, which may not be comfortable speaking on record in a public manner; expressed support for members of the community being allowed to have conversations in a smaller listening site; stated the truth and reconciliation processes formed listening committees; the committees are not precluded from Brown Act agendized meetings; the process allows flexibility for some meetings; there are constraints about how meetings are run; informal conversations may be held without limiting speaking times or discussions; work sessions can be held; the consideration of a heavily bureaucratic process may not work for BIPOC community members; a process for a safe discussion which also allows for public and transparent meetings is needed. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the provision had been suggested by BIPOC community members and is being passed on to Council for discussion and direction. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether Council cannot provide direction. The City Attorney responded Council may provide suggestions; stated the suggestions should not be direction and may be changed by the City Manager; the City Manager may receive input from Council and the community in order to make a determination about how to form the committees. Stated that she does not know the process of how to get involved; the process has not been laid out directly: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda. Stated there seems to be a collective lack of understanding on how to engage with subcommittees; urged a release of a public document which indicates the process and ways which are clear; inquired what the pathway of engagement would be if the general public does not agree with the subcommittee process: Grover Wehman-Brown, Alameda. Expressed concern about a subcommittee which will appoint task forces which mainly revolve around review and data, but not enough action and the amount of autonomy the City Manager has in appointing the subcommittee; stated it is unclear why people still feel unique or immune to racist policing practices; the plan has limited detail on committee and task force selection: Alexia Arocha, Alameda. Stated that she has been impacted by the issues to be addressed by the task force; there is a fuzziness about roles, authorities and time commitments; expressed concern about trying to make judgements about how much time to give to the task force and getting meaningful input from those most impacted; stated the process feels Special Meeting Alameda City Council 8 July 21, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf CityCouncil,2018-03-06,30,"Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether there is an estimate of the deferred maintenance. The City Auditor responded the deferred maintenance does not appear in the financials because it is not required. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether there is a payment plan for the unfunded pension liabilities. The City Manager responded Council has set aside money towards paying the amount down; stated last fiscal year, money was set aside and 50% of any surplus is directed to go towards the unfunded liability; staff will bring the item back to Council during the mid- year budget. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired about the highest amount the City will have to pay, to which the City Manager responded $34 million. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether that is for one year payment and which year the payment is due. The City Manager responded in 2025. Mayor Spencer inquired when staff will return to Council. The City Manager responded the mid-year budget cycle will be on the next Council meeting. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested clarification on OPEB; stated at one point, public safety employees were paying into the fund. The City Manager responded a contribution brought the fund from 0% funded to the 12% funded range. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether deferred maintenance can be listed in the Auditor's report although it is not required to be listed. The City Manager responded the matter can be discussed at the mid-year budget cycle. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he would like to be ahead of the curve on said issue. The City Manager stated staff has collected data and has deferred maintenance figures. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether the deferred maintenance can return at the next meeting. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission March 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-03-06.pdf CityCouncil,2005-05-17,30,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -MAY 17, 2005- - -7:10 P. .M. Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 7:20 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (05-225) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case St. Paul Property and Liability Insurance V. City of Alameda. Following the closed session, the special meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction to the City Attorney. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the special meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,30,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2009-10-20,30,"ballot; inquired what Oakland Chinatown wants. The Planning Services Manager responded the project that would be analyzed is the project described in the SunCal initiative; stated alternatives would also be reviewed; an EIR is needed; mitigations need to be identified; the primary issue is transportation. louncilmember/Board Member Tam stated that she has concerns with the $2 million cost; inquired how much of SunCal's money was spent on Transportation Report #2, to which the Planning Services Manager responded approximately $70,000. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the City paid for the report. Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated that she is referring to the transportation element part of the initiative. The Planning Services Manager stated land use and transportation are both in the initiative; the EIR would determine whether traffic at Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street would be unacceptable and would address mitigations; mitigations would be imposed on the project through later approvals. Vice Mayor/Board Member deHaan inquired how long the EIR would take. The Planning Services Manager responded a public draft could be provided late May or early June 2010. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated six months seems fast. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would be a safe timeline for a preliminary EIR, to which the Planning Services Manager responded August. Vice Mayor/Board Member deHaan stated an EIR would not be available prior to voting on the initiative. The Planning Services Manager stated the commitment to Chinatown is that there would be an EIR before construction occurs; the Settlement Agreement does not prevent a citizen's initiative. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether a conflict between mitigation measures and voter approved initiative language could be possible. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-20,29,"reading of the ordinance, including the minor adjustment; stated including the direction is clearer than hoping the direction is remembered. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the proposed change will still constitute a first reading. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the language should be captured properly; recommended modified language be included under Subsection f. of 30-98.10; the section discusses City Manager expenditures; staff can add language to reflect the Council be notified of any City Manager expenditure approvals. Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the expenditure is made as soon as it is approved by the City Manager; noted that his interest is future Councilmembers have the ability to Call for Review any potentially offensive installations prior to expenditure and installation; inquired whether there is a section prior to City Manager approval where the language can be placed or whether a waiting period of five to 10 days post- approval can be added. The City Manager responded that he has included a similar structure for matters other than public art; stated that he can inform Council 10 days prior to approving the purchase; the notice will state the City Manager intends to approve a purchase; if Council wishes to appeal the approval, an appeal can be provided within the 10 day time period; if an appeal be received within the ten day period, the expenditure will not be approved and the matter will be brought to Council. Councilmember Knox White expressed support for the City Manager recommendation. The Economic Development Manager inquired whether Council would like to be informed of any minor changes or expenditures. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about Councilmember Knox White's proposal; inquired whether the goal is to have Council be informed of art installations and be apprised of any concerns raised by neighbors. Councilmember Knox White responded the matter might become too complicated to compile a list of things to review; stated Council should be alerted of approved artwork; the proposal is rooted in the artwork; he does not need to see minor changes. The City Manager stated that he understands the concern in relation to the impact of the artwork itself. Councilmember Knox White expressed support for language to limit change orders. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned the Council process if a member of the community indicates displeasure with an art approval. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 22",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-24,29,"Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (18-451) Michael Moon, CCA East Bay, discussed diversity and suggested there be greater diversity on Boards and Commissions. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (18-452) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Historical Advisory Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board, Social Service Human Relations Board and Transportation Commission. Mayor Spencer nominated Jennifer Wit for appointment to the HAB and Marsha Broquedis and Asheshh Saheba for appointment to the Planning Board. (18-453) Councilmember Oddie expressed concern over some of the reprehensible rhetoric being heard, which Councilmembers have a duty to denounce; no one asks him where he was born and how long he has lived here, which they ask Vice Mayor Vella; discussed micro-aggression, which is a sign of racism. Mayor Spencer stated that she is the first Hispanic Mayor of the City; googling her name comes up with derogatory comments; she supports the reduction of derogatory comments against all Councilmembers. (18-454) Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council has discussed other means of helping people stay housed; Kamala Harris has introduced a Rent Relief Act for Californians; hopefully, the City will follow up and provide support; someone paying more than 30% of their taxable income on rent, including utilities, would be eligible. Mayor Spencer stated the City might have already supported the Act. Councilmember Oddie stated if the matter does not fall under the legislative agenda, it should be brought back. ADJOURNMENT (18-455) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:24 a.m. in memory of Nia Wilson. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf CityCouncil,2019-03-19,29,"Vice Mayor Knox White made brief comments. Councilmember Vella inquired whether workshop A and B are able to be agendized to allow other Councilmembers to attend. The Interim City Attorney responded a member of Council may attend, but not participate in a subcommittee meeting. Councilmember Vella inquired whether she would be able to ask questions. The Interim City Attorney responded in the negative; stated if a Councilmember would like to participate, the meeting should be noticed in a timely manner to be properly agendized. The City Clerk stated a 7-day notice is required to allow the entire Council to attend and speak. Councilmember Oddie stated there are many items that Councilmembers would like to weigh-in on; expressed concern about attending a workshop without proper preparation. Vice Mayor Knox White stated the goal of bringing the item is to gain input on topics of interest and the process. Councilmember Oddie stated mid-April is only 3 weeks away, and may not be enough time to produce changes that can be vetted by the community. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that her direction was to go through the City Charter in detail; discussed items that are not currently included in the Charter. Councilmember Daysog stated the items he has suggested have political legitimacy; limiting the topics was not discussed; outlined his priorities for Charter updates. Councilmember Vella stated there should be more discussion about topics; suggested the item be continued to a future meeting. The City Clerk noted Elections Code 1415 prohibits employment issues from being on the March election and the City would have to pay to participate in the election. Councilmember Oddie discussed the Charter provision deemed to be vague and unclear. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the item may be continued to April 2, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. (19-182) February 2019 Topic Brief on Climate Action and Embodied Emissions. [Informational Only] (Councilmember Oddie) Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf CityCouncil,2019-07-16,29,"Councilmember Oddie expressed support for the higher range fee and being above 50%; stated a backup plan is needed; the fund is essentially depleted; the Climate Emergency cannot be delayed. Vice Mayor Knox White stated Councilmember Oddie makes a compelling argument for why Council should ask for the higher end of the range. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation with the $78 fee. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated 250 responses were gathered from roughly 2,900; usually 600 responses are needed for 90-95% certainty; expressed concern over the margin of error. The Public Works Director stated the surveys were mailed to nearly 12,000 people; 2,200 responses were received; discussed tenants who are registered voters, having a lower response rate with a higher margin of error. Councilmember Daysog outlined Census American Community Survey (ACS) procedure; expressed concern for the higher range fee; expressed support for the smaller $45 fee; stated specific apartment complexes only pay $289 for the entire parcel for hospital tax, which is unfair. Councilmember Vella expressed support for the higher fee and putting a vote forward; stated every voter matters regardless if they own property or not. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1. (19-448) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-2.B (Zoning Regulations) to Define ""Animal Shelter"" and Section 30-4.10 (Zoning Regulations) to Add Animal Shelter and Supervised Outdoor Animal Runs as Uses Requiring a Use Permit within the C-M (Commercial Manufacturing) Zoning District. Introduced. Councilmember Vella moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether a public hearing must be opened. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there are any public speakers, to which the City Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf CityCouncil,2021-10-19,29,"Subcommittee. (21-672) Councilmember Daysog noted AC Transit will have cameras and be able to issue fines for cars parked in bus stops; announced that he attended the First Tee event at the Chuck Corica Golf Course. (21-673) Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she attended the Italian Heritage Festival parade in San Francisco; announced an upcoming Airport Noise Forum meeting; expressed concern about the letter to the County supporting the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District [paragraph no. 21-660 being added to the agenda. (21-674) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended Walk and Roll to School Day at Wood Middle School and the Fire Chief swearing in ceremony. Councilmember Herrera Spencer announced that she also attended both the Walk and Roll to School Day and the Fire Chief swearing in ceremony. ADJOURNMENT (21-675) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf CityCouncil,2021-03-16,29,"with a policy that focuses on safety related citations. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated citations are given out for street cleaning violations; blocking driveways or parking in front of fire hydrants; there is also not paying the meter; she would like to hear back from staff; if the City is going to have meters, people need to park far or pay; she would not want to ask the Police not to enforce the law; she would like clarification; a clear message should be sent to the Police Department; there should be opportunities on ways to address penalties or an educational component. Councilmember Knox White stated the motion was for traffic enforcement, not parking enforcement; parking citations are issued by separate employees; he does not see parking enforcement as part of the conversation; he agrees with writing citations for parking problems. The City Clerk stated the motion is to direct staff to identify traffic enforcement policy focusing on safety related and diversion issues and working with the Transportation Commission; reporting back on UBI, catalytic converters and anything else to avoid crimes; while the Review Committee will take time, staff can review some other implementation; and one addition. Councilmember Knox White stated the addition was legislation for catalytic converters; regarding the Review Committee, staff should bring back a report to Council on how they would proposed to move forward. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the Interim Police Chief would be part of the staff looking into matters, to which Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog stated the first part of the motion is really about traffic; he and Councilmember Herrera Spencer were addressing vehicles whether moving or not, he would like to amend the motion to state vehicles, not just traffic; the City has ordinances implicated in the topic of criminalization of poverty that are vehicle related; it is not just moving traffic issues; inquired whether the motion could be amended to vehicle. Councilmember Knox White stated if citations are not being written, people do not have to pay; data shows that is one of the big places of disparity; he is not supportive and thinks the City should be looking at safety and relate to Vision Zero. Councilmember Daysog withdrew his second. Councilmember Herrera Spencer provided an example of a vehicle towing; stated that she would like the matter to be addressed; inquired whether Councilmember Knox White would reconsider including it in the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 29 March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2017-11-07,29,"The City Manager made brief comments. Mike Meyer and Craig Hill, NHA Advisors, reviewed the recommendation in the Power Point. Mayor Spencer inquired whether surplus means reserves. The City Manager responded the $2 million is a budget line item. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the $2 million being a budget line item means the $2 million will not end up in reserves but will be spent. The City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City is reducing the cost, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated over time, there is a significant savings from not having to pay CalPERS. Mr. Meyer stated over 15 years, close to $60 million will be saved. Vice Mayor Vella inquired what will happen in the event of an economic downturn and there is not $2 million in reserves; will there be layoffs. The City Manager responded there is a mid-cycle and mid-year review of the budget; stated the Council could decide whether or not to include the $2 million in every budget. Vice Mayor Vella inquired if the ask will occur with each budget cycle or is there a proposal to draft a resolution to make the decision now. The City Manager responded the goal is to include the amount in the budget for Council consideration. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the recommendation would be made if there is a surplus. The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated prepaying saves twice as much long term. Vice Mayor Vella stated $8 million is going to retiree costs, which are $265 million; there is $100 million in Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB); she understood the trust was created to deal with both OPEB and retiree costs. Mr. Meyer responded in the affirmative; stated the $8 million is dedicated to pension costs. Councilmember Oddie inquired why the City decided not to put anything into OPEB. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf CityCouncil,2020-06-02,29,"The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated staff can either have the discussion with the OGC first or staff can bring proposed language back to Council to address Councilmember Vella's concerns. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the allotted time for Council discussion has passed. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of continuing the matter to the next Council meeting. Councilmember Oddie expressed support for the item being placed at the beginning of the next meeting. Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a Council Referral may be placed at the beginning of an agenda. The City Attorney stated Council may continue the item to 6:59 p.m. at the next Council meeting. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 16 June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf CityCouncil,2022-02-01,29,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 18, 2022- -5:00 P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:02 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 5:34 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.] Absent: None. Consent Calendar: (22-037) Recommendation to approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Nico Procos, Alameda Municipal Power General Manager, Erin Smith, Public Works Director, Alan Cohen, Assistant City Attorney, and Alan Harbottle, Senior Energy Resources Analyst, as Designated Negotiators with NextEra Energy Resources Related to Doolittle Landfill. Not heard. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (22-038) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code 54956.8); Property: 11-Acre Portion of the 33.2-Acre Doolittle Landfill Sire Located Northwest of the Intersection of Doolittle Drive and Harbor Bay Parkway. Not heard. (22-039) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9); Case Name: City of Alameda V. All Persons Interested in the Matter of the Issuance and Sale of One or More Series of Pension Obligation Bonds to Refinance Outstanding Obligations of the City of Alameda to the California Public Employees' Retirement Law, and All Proceedings Leading Thereto, Including the Adoption of a Resolution and Sale of Such Bonds, Alameda County Taxpayers' Association, Steve Slauson, and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Number: 21CV001157. (22-040) Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation, Initiation of Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, subsection (d)(4)); Number of Cases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action); Potential Defendant(s): Alameda Point Partners, LLC. (22-041) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8); Property: Alameda Point, Site A, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, and Louis Liss, Base Reuse Manager; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners, LLC; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 18, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf CityCouncil,2022-05-03,29,"but outcomes; stated that he would like to add direction to staff to develop a memorandum that outlines the meaning and specifics of AFFH in Alameda; many southern California cities HE were not certified in the first or second round; the bar is set high; expressed support for the City submitting a certified HE; stated the City can point to what is being done to AFFH, rather than forcing HCD and the community to read through the document and try to pick up what is being done to address fair housing and historical inequities; many people do not want to leave their home; if failed housing policies continue in California, people who cannot afford to live in the area will be pushed into other States; people who have grown up in California and have California values do not necessarily want to live under more stringent and conservative regimes which do not recognize and honor people the same as California; policy makers are responsible if cities lose people due to unaffordability; the City needs to be looking towards the future, not just at the economy and climate, but in caring for each other and making sure future generations can live in the area. Councilmember Daysog stated each Councilmember must do their best to represent the values and visions which are best for the City and its residents; he believes the City must do the minimum amount necessary to meet the State requirements; the City can continue to do so within the framework of City Charter Article 26 by following through and continuing the housing overlay strategy signed off on by HCD in the previous HE; he suspects HCD will sign off on the strategy once again; there are new concerns related to AFFH; however, the City should figure out how to meet the requirements within the context of Measure A; discussed the 2020 election results; stated the message put forth was understood by Alamedans; Alameda is an Island and has limited infrastructure; it is difficult to meet the RHNA requirement of 5,300 units; he would rather not be required to produce so many units; he would prefer to produce 3,700 units; however, the City is required to produce the 5,300 units; he would like the City to do the minimum amount necessary in compliance with the Measure Z; upzoning so much of Alameda is inconsistent with the will of the voters; expressed concern about having a HE that undoes the City Charter; stated the City can meet its HE and HCD obligations while working within Article 26; expressed concern about elements of the HE; stated the most vital thing is how the City is undermining something that the voters of Alameda recently reaffirmed; the City figured out how to work around limitations, which was enough to get through the last HE; acquiesced HCD could sue the City on grounds of noncompliance; stated the City needs to stand its ground; he is not supportive of many elements of the HE and undermining Article 26. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not agree with upzoning the school properties; one of the schools should be used for open space; she supports the minimum; expressed support for the public comments related to the possibility of adding homes within an envelope and challenging the AFFH data related to high and low resource areas; stated it is possible for the data to be updated due to Alameda Point housing; discussed home and rent prices; stated the approach is not lowering housing prices; she stands by the no on Z vote due to the older housing stock keeping Alameda affordable for residents; Berkeley has a higher density than Alameda; Alameda is a majority minority community due to the old housing stock; Berkeley's majority is white; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 3, 2022 25",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-27,29,"administratively; tonight, no policy action would be taken on any of the resolutions; Council would be letting voters decide. Councilmember Gilmore stated not having the Subcommittee meet ahead of time should not have prevented staff from coming forward with the ideas prior to the eleventh hour; staff is requesting Council to take an action tonight at the last possible minute to allow the matter to go forward on the November election; staff could have brought the matter forward administratively a month or two ago; that she is not imputing any bad motive by staff; however, from a public policy standpoint, the matter appears rushed and ill-considered to be brought up at the eleventh hour. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired when would be the next window of opportunity [to address the issues]. The City Clerk responded for a General Election, two years; stated the issues could be consolidated with countywide elections. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the fire fighter initiative was relegated to November 2011. The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the election would not be a General City election. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether putting more issues on the ballot would help cost-wise. The City Clerk responded costs would not be significantly more; stated the City would already be bearing the cost of the election. The Interim City Manager stated the only new resolution is regarding delaying the effective date of any ordinance that would require an expenditure of funds until funds are identified; the issue is something that the City should consider because initiatives spring up left and right. Councilmember Tam stated the binding arbitration resolution is new to her; the issue was not brought up when she served on the Charter Subcommittee. The Interim City Manager stated the issue has been a major discussion as long as she has been Interim City Manager; the City has an opportunity to move forward on something that would reflect the Fiscal Sustainability Committee's theme, which would allow voters to decide whether or not to have binding arbitration given today's economic reality; putting the measure on the ballot would involve a through public process; that she does not think management should not be able recommend something that is vital to the City. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 29 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf CityCouncil,2010-04-20,29,"The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the City had one application for density bonus under State law before the City had an ordinance on the books. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that she does not think Council thought passing the density bonus ordinance changed Measure A. Mr. Faye stated the ordinance in mid-December specifically allows a developer to submit an application that not only increases density with providing affordable housing but also grounds Council the ability to consider a waiver of Measure A, which was new. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the record needs to be very clear that the State density bonus law would have allowed the same thing; changing Measure A is not necessary; Council did not do anything in December that is different than State density bonus law; Council did not amend Measure A; amending Measure A is not necessary to use the density bonus ordinance; the State density bonus law has been in place for many years and could have been used by SunCal at any time with the same affect essentially as the City's density bonus ordinance passed in December which only reflected a few changes for Alameda. Mr. Faye stated bringing back the ordinance at the next meeting might be appropriate; that he thinks there was material changes. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the question is whether SunCal had the ability to use the density bonus ordinance before December and the answer is yes. Mr. Faye stated the answer to the question, as to whether SunCal was able to get a waiver to Measure A under the Code absent a vote of the people, changed in mid December. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the question is whether SunCal was able to get an effective change to Measure A under State density bonus law; the City Attorney/Legal Counsel would say yes; inquired whether said statement is correct. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative; stated Council would have had the obligation under State density bonus law to consider a request for a waiver of the multi-family configuration restriction if necessary to site additional market rate units granted through the bonus, which is what the law says; Council would have been obligated to consider that even prior to the ordinance. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she is getting the sense that Mr. Faye is saying that it is the City's fault that SunCal had to put Measure B on the ballot because the City did not do a density bonus ordinance until December, which is not the case. Mr. Faye stated that he is not what he is saying; there is a difference between the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 9 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf CityCouncil,2007-12-04,29,"expenses the other way is to not fund infrastructure, as was done in the past; Council decided that the City could no longer do that [not fund infrastructurel; tough choices will need to be made. Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is not overly concerned with replenishing the reserves; the reserve was built partially on the PERS bonanza that occurred in the dot. . com boom. The Finance Director stated two years had a zero percent contribution; the money was allowed to flow back into the fund balance rather than setting the money aside to be used in the future for payments. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that his biggest concern is balancing the budget and delivering essential services; the big difference between 2002 and today is that there was not $10 billion a month of tax dollars flowing out of the economy at the federal level; tonight's discussion sets the stage for what will be a very tough fiscal environment for the foreseeable future; it is important to put on the brakes now. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how department heads cut budgets when there are already built in increases. The Finance Department responded salary and benefits are contracted; a position can be left vacant. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated department heads are being asked to cut budgets by 1.5%; however, budgets are increasing more than 1. .5% because of fixed increases. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated Contracts are tied to salaries; the salaries are paid to people; the blunt end is either not filling the position or lay offs. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how long the City had the 25% reserve. The Finance Director responded Council was presented with a policy for adoption in late 1997 or early 1998. Councilmember/BoardMember/Commissioner Matarrese requested a copy of said policy. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated Alameda is one of Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 15 and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf CityCouncil,2010-03-16,29,"Mr. Faye stated that SunCal came to tonight's meeting in good faith and is trying to create positives; the ENA term runs through July; SunCal's intent is to move forward in a positive, transparent manner; SunCal has entered into a project labor agreement with organized labor; SunCal had hoped to use the tolling period to continue to expand the outreach of support; SunCal is prepared to lift the confidentiality under the ENA and believes that transparency is a good idea; SunCal will submit the OEA on time and will send a letter of reservation with the application; the deadline will be met; that he withdraws the request for the 60-day tolling period because Council wants to review the plan; SunCal has spent over $100,000 in order to meet the deadline to submit a meaningful application; SunCal had hoped to submit the application without a reservation letter; SunCal looks forward to a completely transparent process Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired when transparency would start and what type of documents would be released. Mr. Faye responded confidentiality provisions would be lifted immediately; stated the only exception would be business terms between SunCal and D. E. Shaw, which are proprietary and SunCal's underwriting, which is proprietary; all information going into creating the project performa would be transparent. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated residents had many questions regarding the financials and whether or not things would pencil out; that she would like to start with releasing the financials so that the public can pour through information and draw conclusions. Mr. Faye stated SunCal is committed to the transparent process; SunCal loaned an underwriter to the City for stress models; SunCal has nothing to hide; the information flow was imperfect; that he withdraws the request for the 60-day tolling period so that no action is needed tonight; the Council/Board Members/Commissioners should meet with SunCal as soon as OEA corrections are submitted; SunCal has rebuilt part of its team; the new partners in labor are going to surprise the Council/Board Members/Commissioners. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a year ago, SunCal started going down a contentious avenue and moved on to a situation where the election was deferred; the election could have occurred in November of last year; the City has been in the [ENA] agreement for three years; the initiative was very trying and became a campaign with a different approach; when SunCal lost its financial partner, the Council/Board Members/Commissioners extended the agreement for eight months; another extension was given for the initiative; the process has been prolonged; an 85% [voters against initiative] outcome is unknown in preceding elections; that he commends SunCal for the effort to make nice with the union; SunCal has not talked with Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 4 Community Improvement Commission March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2014-07-15,29,"Attachment to July 15, 2014 Regular City Council Minutes",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-07-11,29,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday July 11, 2018 6:30 p.m. I sent an email asking about if facade moneys could be used to make entrances more accessible, and they said, no. It's got to be used for making it look more beautiful. I'm sorry, but we might be able to find some other grants, so that we could push for ADA grants to make entrances more accessible. Chair Beth Kenny: Thank you, Laurie. I spoke with Linda Asberry, who is head of the West Alameda Business Association, and she's actually on that Facade Grants Program. She's part of the people who approve who gets the facade grants. So she might be a good person to just figure out how they got the facade grants going in the first place, and instead of facade grants, we can have accessibility grants. Vice Chair Jenn Barrett: Yes, that's a great idea. Chair Beth Kenny: And she is also very interested in the program that you're putting together. Vice Chair Jenn Barrett: Great. Do you have our email? Chair Beth Kenny: I do. Vice Chair Jenn Barrett: Okay, that'll be great. Chair Beth Kenny: I'll shoot that over to you. Vice Chair Jenn Barrett: Thank you so much. Chair Beth Kenny: Sure. Laurie Kozisek: Okay, That's all I had. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Beth Kenny: Thank you very much. If there are no other announcements 8. ADJOURNMENT Chair Beth Kenny: I'd like to adjourn our meeting. 09/12/18 Page 29 of 29",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-07-11.pdf CityCouncil,2019-12-18,29,"City Council Workshop Workshop Report Management Partners Disagree with the recommendation/don't attack the ""messenger"": When dealing with a difficult issue at a council meeting, it can be tempting to not only disagree with the recommendation being presented, but also to challenge/ discredit the manager or staff member presenting the recommendation. The best practice is to focus your comments on the recommendation, not the individual Having a policy discussion devolve into a personal attack is uncomfortable and embarrassing to everyone involved. Even if you are frustrated by the recommendation, it is poor form to attack the presenter. If you do have concerns regarding how a recommendation was developed or presented, that should be provided privately to the manager. P.S.: Don't play ""stump the staff"" by trying to ask questions at the meeting that you think staff will have difficulty answering on the spot. It doesn't really make you look smarter, nor is it helpful to the deliberations to ask a question that cannot be answered. While staff members should work diligently to anticipate questions, it is not possible to anticipate all possible questions. If you really want the answer, get the question answered before the meeting or provide a heads up regarding what you will be asking. Conduct yourself at council meetings in a professional/businesslike manner: Even on very controversial topics with greatly varying opinions, the council deliberation can be and should be ""businesslike"" and professional. While it may be more entertaining (possibly from a reality TV perspective) to see councilmembers and citizens yelling and having temper tantrums, it gets in the way of thoughtful deliberations and only tends to lower the respect for the council and city in the eyes of your constituents. Consider the use of council team-building and goal-setting workshops: Recognizing the importance of both effective councilmember/councilmember and council/city manager working relationships, often an investment of time in team- building workshops is very worthwhile. These workshops allow for a thoughtful conversation of working relationships outside the context of discussing specific issues. These discussions can help create a better understanding of work styles and perspectives. Additionally, recognizing that clear direction and priorities are critical for effective council/manager relations, goal-setting workshops can be very effective forums for establishing city council and organizational priorities. - 9 - 23",CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-16,29,"believes that he has found shortcomings in the contract presented; he is putting trust in City staff listening to Council comments and concerns in order to strengthen the contract; the opportunity is rare and will quickly address the homeless crisis; the City is able to do something it was unable to previously do by using ARPA funds; however, the contract must be strengthened; expressed support for the matter; stated Alameda Point will be better in having a mixed community. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not be supporting the motion; it is unfortunate that the City is not providing public outreach in advance of approving the program; the community is already mixed; legitimate concerns have been raised; neighbors needed to have been involved in the process before the matter came to Council. Vice Mayor Vella restated her motion to approve moving forward with the staff recommendation [including adoption of the resolution] with direction to staff to change the contract language and have more than one community meeting; amended her motion to include removal of funding for the vehicle. Councilmember Daysog accepted the amendment to the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. (21-755) Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update to Accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the Period 2023-2031 in Compliance with State Law. Continued to November 30, 2021. (21-756) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, and Adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the General Plan Amendment to Update the Alameda General Plan; and (21-756 A) Adoption of Resolution Adopting Alameda General Plan 2040. Continued to November 30, 2021. (21-757) Recommendation to Reorganize the City's Parking Management Program and Parking Fund; (21-757 / A) Resolution No. 15839, ""Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Parking Fund Budget to Restructure the Parking Fund."" Adopted; and (21-757 B) Resolution No. 15840, ""Amending the Salary Schedule for the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) and the Alameda Police Officers Association, Non-Sworn (PANS) to Move the Two Parking Enforcement Positions from PANS to ACEA and Reassign Two Full-Time Parking Enforcement Position Allocations from the Police Department to Public Works."" Adopted. The Transportation Planner gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what happens to the money collected for ferry parking. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2021 18",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-10,29,"seawall at some point. The Assistant Community Development Director responded there could be a massive failure from an earthquake, a broken water pipe generating pressure and tipping over the wall, or other scenarios. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant Community Development Director reviewed the land owned by the City and outlined potential issues if the development is not approved, including access and funding improvements. Mayor Spencer inquired the cost of the needed improvements, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded $20 to $25 million; outlined improvements being done as part of the project phasing. Mayor Spencer inquired whether boaters might not be able to use the seawall at some point. The Assistant Community Development Director responded there is a serious problem if the developer does not fix the seawall; any failure would be the City's problem; the City would have to find the money to fix the seawall; if the seawall fails, having the marina continue would be extremely difficult. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to make a motion. Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with Councilmember Matarrese regarding the green space and elimination of art studios in the commercial core; she wants to leave the 50/50 rental/homeowner split. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese would like to eliminate the industrial artist studios, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded he would clarify in the motion. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Master Plan [introduction of the ordinance], with the following: 1) amendments one through five listed on the handout provided by Planning staff dated July 10, 2018; 2) a policy that says in the maritime commercial core only maritime commercial activities will be permitted; and Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to specifically exclude Councilmember Matarrese continued the motion: to specifically exclude the two items that were flagged on page 48; and 3) re-designate the 1,900 square feet west of Building 19 in the Mater Plan as commercial maritime space. Mayor Spencer seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she thinks it is a mistake to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf OpenGovernmentCommission,2015-02-02,29,"Commissioner Dieter stated the Commission was provided a full copy of the Sunshine Ordinance; having the complete Sunshine Ordinance include redlines would be easier to follow versus going back and forth; when there is a redline suggested including a notation, such as moved to versus deleted in its entirety; the City Council would also really appreciate knowing what has been deleted and what has just been rearranged. In response to Commissioner Bonta's inquiry regarding the meeting date, the City Clerk responded the meeting could be held May 4th Commissioner Bonta inquired whether the meeting have to be held on the first Monday, to which the City Clerk responded the Council Chambers are available the first Monday; that she could check availability for other dates. The Commission agreed to hold the next meeting March 30th. Commissioner Dieter addressed the minutes; inquired whether new agenda items could be on a new line; stated it was extremely difficult to read a new line item at the end of the previous line on the current minutes; if the Commission is discussing a particular Section, have it start on a new line; even the agenda item itself could be listed; in this particular one, there was no explanation for potential revisions; in the future, suggested copying and pasting from the agenda into the minutes so the public would know what the actual agenda item was. The City Clerk inquired whether Commission Dieter is asking for example: ""3-C Potential Revisions to the City Sunshine Ordinance,"" to which Commissioner Dieter responded in the affirmative. The City Clerk stated it [the agenda title] is always carried over. Commissioner Dieter stated on the minutes we just approved they were not there. The City Clerk responded it was there. Commissioner Dieter stated that she would show the City Clerk after the meeting. Vice Chair Foreman inquired how Commissioners can add things to the agenda; inquired who does the agenda. The City Clerk responded the City Attorney's Office and City Clerk's office staff the Commission and add agenda items; stated if Commissioners have items to bring forward, sometimes they have raised them during Commissioner Communications. Vice Chair Foreman inquired what if a Commissioner wants to add an item before the agenda goes out, to which the City Clerk responded it could be added under Commissioner Communications; requested an example. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 29",OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2016-11-01,29,"Councilmember Oddie stated the matter can be addressed at the priority setting work session; the possible benefits to the community should be contemplated and discussed at the priority setting work session. Mayor Spencer requested clarification on the referral process; stated the referral is done to decide whether staff should review the matter; the priority setting work session is to determine where within the priorities the matter will be placed; her preference would be to vote on whether or not Council wants to hear the matter as a referral. Councilmember Oddie stated he is okay with reviewing the issue at the priority setting work session. Mayor Spencer moved approval of hearing the matter. Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether Councilmember Oddie would accept a friendly amendment to the referral to accept controls and regulations in residential areas. Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative, including the possible use of taxation. Mayor Spencer stated she assumed said matters would be included in the review. Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would not want the City of Alameda to rush into the issue; he would want to look at other cities to see how the issue could work in the City of Alameda. Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the Council should wait to see if the proposition passes in the November election there could be the absence of regulation and law; inquired will the City be governed by what is in the State code. The City Attorney responded the City of Alameda protected itself to maintain control. Councilmember Oddie stated the underlying principle is to look at other cities to see what Alameda can do better. On the call for the question, motion carried by the following voice vote: Councilmember Oddie, Vice Mayor Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1. Abstention: Councilmember Daysog - 1. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (16-581) Vice Mayor Matarrese pointed out highlights of the AC Transit/City of Alameda liaison meeting last week; stated the neighbors that attended the Council meeting about Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf CityCouncil,2015-10-20,29,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -OCTOBER 20, 2015- -6:00 P.M. Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5. Absent: None. Public Comment Former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda, discussed the Council's recent Harbor Bay decision, which he believes will be the subject of litigation; urged the City Council not to buckle under pressure of litigation. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (15-605) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8); Property: Tidelands at Encinal Terminal, 1521 Buena Vista, Alameda, CA; City Negotiator: Andrew Thomas; Organizations Represented: State of California; Issue Under Negotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms of Payment (15-606) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); City Negotiator: Elizabeth D. Warmerdam; Employee Organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local1245 (IBEW), Electric Utility Professional Association of Alameda (EUPA), Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association, Non-Sworn (PANS), Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA); Under Negotiation: Salaries and terms of employment Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and the City Attorney announced that regarding Real Property, before the discussion, Vice Mayor Matarrese objected to hearing the matter in closed session; the matter was heard and direction was given to staff; and regarding Labor, direction was given to staff. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf CityCouncil,2018-06-05,29,"The Acting City Manager inquired what Mayor Spencer is asking for an end date. Mayor Spencer stated that she would prefer an end date or transparency by adding ""in perpetuity."" The Acting Assistant City Manager stated the language includes: ""until ended by voters."" Councilmember Matarrese stated said language is pretty clear to him. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of calling the question. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested discussion. Councilmember Matarrese stated there has been a call for the question and a second. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: No. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. On the call for the question on the original motion, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: No. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. Following Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's comments, Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmembers cannot continue speaking after a motion to call the question is approved. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the vote must be taken and Council has to move on. Mayor Spencer inquired what should be done and whether she should hit the gavel when a Councilmember continues to speak, to which the City Attorney responded the Mayor should do so. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (18-345) The Acting City Manager reviewed the list of Council's priorities from the work plan discussion held on May 18th; made an announcement regarding recent power outages, Alameda Municipal Power's (AMP's) new customer portal, AMP being recognized for its buy green program, and AMP cohosting a meeting on solar on June 13th Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 29 June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf CityCouncil,2007-06-19,29,"forgotten. Mayor Johnson stated the responsibility for the Meyers House was given to the Recreation and Park Department budget without funding. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Development Services could support some of the funding and training [for the Cultural Arts Program since the issue is related to economic development activity; requested staff to review the matteri further stated a shuttle service was discussed for the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) property; it is important to set up the dynamics within the City to be able to transport individuals, particularly seniors, to shopping centers; the matter should be addressed in future development agreements, such as Alameda Point and the Northern Waterfront; he would like to have a commitment from the FISC property developer stated San Leandro's program was initiated with Measure B funding; requested that staff review San Leandro' program. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 11:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 18 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 19, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf CityCouncil,2006-10-17,29,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 17, 2006- -6:40 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider (06-509) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators : Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee organizations : Alameda City Employees Association, Executive Management Group, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Management and Confidential Employees Association, and Police Association Non- Sworn. (06-510) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case : Collins V. City of Alameda. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received an update and gave direction to its Labor Negotiators; regarding Existing Litigation, Council received a litigation status update from Legal Counsel and no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lana Stoker Acting City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf CityCouncil,2020-03-03,29,"questioned funding for other projects; stated the cost of the project is unknown; the project could be cost prohibitive. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the direction to hire a consultant could be postponed until the mid-cycle budget. Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like staff to draft an RFP requiring minor modifications; the cost of a consultant may be within the approval of the City Manager. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern for taking items outside of the budget process. Councilmember Oddie expressed concern for the delay in DePave Park development. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the July timeline included the consultant completing work or being selected Councilmember Oddie responded selected; stated the consultant will issue and RFP, respondents will return with proposals and a selection will be made by Council. The City Manager requested clarification on RFP timing and budget. The Recreation and Parks Director stated that she does not know the budget for a consultant; the consultant cost for the pool master plan was roughly $68,000; the project could have a similar cost; she is unclear on the requested timeframe; City staff typically issues the RFP; funding is identified prior to issuing an RFP; the RFP process will require the correct kind of consultant; an RFP responded are due in about a month; an interview panel is selected and a contract must be drafted; the process is roughly three months long. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether September would be a reasonable time to return with bids and a budget request. The City Manager stated that the Recreation and Parks Director can include the request in the mid-cycle budget for consideration. Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like the RFP issued. Councilmember Vella expressed concern about delaying DePave Park. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated direction to staff can include the consultant cost in the mid- cycle budget for consideration; noted that the timeline for the project is tight. Councilmember Oddie expressed support for an RFP deadline. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Recreation and Parks Director will deliver once direction is provided. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 March 3, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-19,29,"(20-343) Councilmember Oddie moved approval of hearing the remaining items on the regular agenda without a time-limit; stated that he does not know the amount of public comment on remaining items. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to complete the current item and move to the regular meeting agenda including the consent calendar and regular agenda items. Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for hearing the entire regular meeting agenda. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not willing to go past midnight; requested a friendly amendment to hear the balance of the agenda and finish by midnight. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for hearing the agenda and finishing the meeting by midnight; stated there have been previous issues about late meetings; questioned whether the public is served by Council making decisions at 12:15 a.m. Councilmember Oddie stated that he will do his best to speak briefly. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will not support a motion unless the meeting ends at midnight. Councilmember Daysog expressed support. Councilmember Oddie stated Council speaking time should be cut from 9 to 3 minutes. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the current item requires more than 3 minutes. Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for the motion amendment with the commitment to complete the West Midway Project team selection item [paragraph no. 20-334 on the regular agenda; stated should the time reach midnight and team selection item is not complete, the expectation is to complete the item. Councilmember Vella noted the Council Referral was cut off during a previous Council Communication; stated the item is timely; expressed concern about further delaying the item; stated the item should be short. Councilmember Oddie made a substitute motion to approve hearing all items, speaking quickly, finishing by midnight and any items not finished will be continued to tomorrow's 7:00 p.m. meeting continuation. Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 20 May 19, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-19.pdf CityCouncil,2018-10-16,29,"(18-593) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Library Board, Planning Board and Social Service Human Relations Board. Not heard. (18-594) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she participated in two walk-and-roll- to-school days at both Wood Middle School and Franklin Elementary School. Mayor Spencer stated she participated in one at Otis Elementary. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 October 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-11-28,29,"ITEM 2-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 28, 2018, 6:30 PM Arnold Brillinger: Now see, I'm going to have to go back and find out because I don't remember where it was that I saw it. Laurie Kozisek: Okay, do take a look at it again. There should be a number on it or something, so that you can see who the issuing person was, and their CASp number. Arnold Brillinger: I don't think it was signed, or that it had anything on there. Well, let me find out. I'll give you a call and let you check it out. Because I thought it was kind of interesting because I thought, ""Oh, the group is working on this and here's somebody's order, or whatever. "" But I don't think it looked like that. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Right. No, so that's something that you can pay for to have a certified accessibility inspector come in and look into your facility. Separate, more intensive than this program. This is more of a free encouragement. That's more of a compliance-based. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Okay. We'll move on to number six, staff communications. Laurie Kozisek: Thank you, Madam Chairman. The only thing I have to present is that I got an email today from someone who was ejected out of a restaurant because she had a service animal, which rather surprised her. So you might want to consider looking into service animals and educating people on what's a service animal as opposed to an emotional support animal or therapy animal or whatever, and add that to your education of businesses. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Right. Yeah, that's a huge item. Thank you for bringing that up, and I think that's something that we should definitely look into. You see it on the news a lot recently, and it's definitely illegal to eject someone who has a service animal. So it's sad to hear that that's happening in Alameda if that was the case. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Item seven, any announcements? Commissioner Brillinger? Arnold Brillinger: The other day I was going down Park Street again, and I heard someone yelling. ""Hey you, stop, stop,"" and I thought, ""Well, there's a lot of 'hey yours out here, so I don't I'm not going to turn around."" And so then, ""You in a wheelchair, stop!"" So then I did a U and I looked, and it was another lady in a power chair and she says, ""You're on that commission for the city."" I said, ""Well, yes."" And she says, ""Well I've got a problem."" And her problem was that her power chair had stopped on her when she was at Mastick, and I don't know how she ever got home, but it turned out that no one was really able to help her. Arnold Brillinger: And there's nothing. The county used to have a service where if you had some kind of a problem with your wheelchair, you could call them and see if you can get some help. Now 03/13/19 Page 29 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-11-28.pdf CityCouncil,2017-06-06,29,"The City Manager responded staff could go after grants and return mid-cycle or mid- year when money is set aside; the license plate readers at the bridges are also not included in the current budget and will be brought back to Council. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether staff has a list of the items that will not be funded. The City Manager responded the list is not in the presentation. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether there is a plan to purchase the license plate readers. The Police Chief responded the matter would proceed as soon as some budget savings are realized, which will most likely be in September or October. The City Manager noted savings would be from salary savings. Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie requested clarification regarding the OPEB trust fund; inquired whether the $6.043 million transfer is included in the budget. The Finance Director responded $6.043 million is shown as a reserve; stated in the 2017-18 budget the amount is shown as appropriation so that the funds could be wired over to a trust depending on the allocation being proposed. Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie inquired why the OPEB trust fund increased by so much and is projected to increase in the future. The Finance Director responded the public safety contracts include a provision that in January 2016 the City would contribute funds, plus employee contributions and estimated interest increase the amount. Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie inquired what the expected amount will be in the combined OPEB/PARS trust accounts. The Finance Director responded for OPEB, there will be an additional $3 million contributed, plus normal contributions required by the contract. Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie inquired whether the $3 million is coming from the $6 million set aside the previous year. The Finance Director responded $6 million was set aside in 2015. Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie inquired whether $11.3 million will be set aside for OPEB. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency 3 to the Community Improvement Commission June 6, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,29,"Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, All Zones."" Adopted. Councilmember Daysog recused himself and left the dais. The Management Analyst gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.] (21-457) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution of Intent to Prepare a Housing Element Update for the Period 2023-2031 that Maximizes the Use of City- Owned Land at Alameda Point and Encinal Terminals and Rezones Certain Sites and Districts to Permit Multifamily Housing and Residential Densities of at Least 30 Units per Acre Contrary to City Charter Article 26. Not adopted; and (21-457 A) Consider Directing Staff to File an Appeal of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The Planning, Building, and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Knox White inquired whether there is a policy for adopting the plan to use Multi-Family (MF) overlay zoning or whether the use is enforced by statement. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff understands that the MF overlay must be used in order to comply with state law; stated staff would like to know whether Council would not like to pursue the strategy of using MF overlay, as used in the past two Housing Elements; staff cannot wait to adjust the strategy; staff would like to ensure Council understands and agrees that staff should pursue the same approach as the previous two cycles. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is not sure he sees the breakdown provided by staff in the resolution provided by Councilmember Herrera Spencer. Councilmember Daysog stated the City already has an MF overlay; the approach is not new in terms of meeting State obligations; inquired whether the City is contemplating a new zoning code or category; he understands some sites which are currently zoned C2PD might be labeled as a new zoning category. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-05,29,"Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there is commitment to have an analysis on September 5th; what would the steps be if the City decides it wants an ordinance to lift the ban on cannabis. The City Manager responded staff envisioned bringing questions to Council at the September 5th Council meeting to help draft an ordinance; Council needs to address issues regarding whether retail dispensaries will be separate from cultivation, setbacks from schools and zoning. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the ordinance could be drafted by October 3rd and the second reading by October 17th. The City Manager responded the timing depends on Council's direction on September 5th. stated taxation can only go on the November 5th, 2018 ballot; the City is already discussing the issue with consultants and testing the language for the November 2018 ballot; staff will have the information to Council in September. Councilmember Oddie stated his preference is to get the ordinance drafted as soon as possible; all options should be evaluated. The City Manager noted the original referral includes all the options; stated the current referral is more specific to dispensaries. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the request for the type of ownership could be part of the analysis that returns to Council; and whether the City could incentivize local ownership. The City Manager responded said option will be discussed on September 5th; stated an option could be to allow two permits on the Island and have a criteria process; Council can direct staff. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether staff will return with all of the questions that need to be addressed. The City Manager responded the questions will address future regulations. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether analysis could be done on onsite consumption. The City Manager responded onsite consumption is not on the list; stated she will add it. Councilmember Oddie stated revenue is an important factor. The City Manager stated there are two revenue sources: a cost recovery recouped from the business and a tax that would be put on the ballot. Councilmember Oddie stated Alameda needs to put itself in the position to benefit the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf CityCouncil,2006-12-05,29,"packed. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether limiting the largest building to 50,000 square feet would be considered. Mayor/Chair Johnson responded said limit would be contrary to what WABA requested. louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated some retail stores would require more than 50,000 square feet. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the retail size does not matter; what matters is whether the tenant mix meets the requirements. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there was a cap in the Citywide Retail Strategic Plan. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the negative; stated the focus has been on the quality of the tenants and design. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated typical Kohls stores are 75,000 square feet; 50,000 square feet might not work for Kohls; good parameters need to be set regarding the 300,000 square feet; quality retail would be needed to recoup investments made. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the direction is that Council and the CIC would like to have the retail tenants evaluated against the table in Chapter 3 and that the matter would be brought to Council if there is deviation in the retail strategy. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese clarified that notification should be given whether or not there is deviation from the tenanting strategy. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager further stated the direction is to: 1) add the TDM Program goals, including trip reduction and a matrix to evaluate the success of the program, 2) attach the WABA MOU to the DDA, 3) discuss how to augment the TDM Program if Tinker Avenue infeasibility is declared and there is a lag; 4) tighten the language to be very clear that the process is an interactive processi 5) incorporate language designating AP&T as Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 18 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-18,29,"Stated that he supports the proposal because it supports the maritime industry: Dan Morrison, Starlight Marine Services. Stated Alameda Landing has created a lot of jobs for people in Alameda; the project will create a lot of jobs; urged Council to adopt the ordinance: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative. Stated that she is concerned with the lack of universal design in the proposal: Beth Kenny, Alameda. Stated the housing can be a mix for families, seniors and single residents; the site creates unique opportunities for bike and pedestrian access; he would like to preserve surface space to have flexibility in the future; urged Council to approve the project: Brian McGuire, BikeWalk Alameda. Urged Council to approve the project: Rich Krinks, Alameda. Councilmember Matarrese stated he would like to ensure that the required 50% commercial/industrial use actually happens; the amendment should include language to require that Bay Ship & Yacht, or a maritime commercial occupant, occupies 50% in a limited period of time otherwise the amendment is void; a senior component should be included in the 400 housing units; stated affordable by design is meaningless. Vice Mayor Vella stated there is a public benefit to constructing housing; the easements in the project provide a substantial benefit to alleviate traffic; requested clarification about whether the easements include surface streets. The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Vella suggested working with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) on the water taxi; stated that she has concerns about the universal design aspect; she would like the units to be 100% universal design; visit-ability issues should be worked on; there should be conversations with the Committee on Disability Issues to ensure it is behind the project; inquired where Bay Ship & Yacht currently stands. Alan Cameron, Bay Ship & Yacht, responded they have funding, are ready to go, and are waiting for the property to close. Mayor Spencer inquired whether there can be an amendment to guarantee that the property can remain maritime commercial long term. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the project is maxed out with maritime commercial density uses; if the property is sold, a new EIR will be required, which would prevent any other type of uses. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-16,29,"Councilmember Oddie inquired whether decisions could be appealed to Council. The Assistant City Attorney responded there is a separate hearing officer process; the citation procedure will go to a hearing officer who will determine if the violation occurred and the hearing officer can use discretion when imposing a fine. Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff's proposal. Councilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with staff's proposal. Mayor Spencer inquired what ""garden cottage"" refers to, to which the Community Development Director responded that it implies a smaller or second unit in someone's backyard. Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff's recommendation; a means test would be a substantial change. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated a means test would add further complications with administering the program; the amount of rent someone is paying for the unit they are living in is like a means test; the condition of the units is relative to what they pay. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the meeting to the next regular scheduled Council meeting. Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog and Matarrese - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 3. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important to address everyone's needs; she feels the ordinance addresses the needs of both groups; an annual review will be done that will provide valuable data and modifications can be made as needed; the City is not doing rent control; complaints about Victorian properties being expensive to maintain can be brought to the RRAC and the RRAC can review costs and possibly grant the request, so landlords should go to the RRAC to increase over 5%; landlords have been given no cause evictions with a provision to also protect tenants with the relocation benefits; sunset provision is fair; in 3 years, the City Council could come back and revisit the issue; read Section 6-58.85 regarding committee hearing and decision; stated that she would like a checklist so that everyone has the same experience at the RRAC and to ensure the same data is collected. Mayor Spencer inquired if there could be a form, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated if the RRAC meeting is contested the paperwork could be used. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf CityCouncil,2009-02-07,29,"Councilmember Matarrese stated that he likes the idea because it forces discipline; the City Treasurer and FSC have mentioned an obligation bond [for OPEB]; he would like an explanation if the Interim Finance Director is not comfortable with it [OPEB bond ] ; he would like to see the figures presented today compared side by side with an OPEB bond. Mayor Johnson stated other options that were explored should also be addressed when the matter returns to Council. The Interim Finance Director stated financing $75 million could be an issue. Councilmember Tam commended staff for coming up with the creative idea of leveraging the 1079/1082 plans; that she is not comfortable with the idea of a $75 million bond, which is a huge debt during a difficult time; she would urge Council to direct staff to do parallel vetting: 1) going through the validation process in the court system; and 2) going through the FSC and showing the two options [1079/1082 bond versus OPEB bond]. Mayor Johnson inquired whether said direction is acceptable. Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated that he would like to see whether the risk of carrying the larger debt has benefits that might be worth considering. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she concurs with her colleagues the financing scheme takes care of the current debt; when new employees are hired, the budget would include salary and OPEB funds upfront to keep from adding to the liability. Mayor Johnson stated Council should be very clear that it has no intention of leaving the benefit the way it is now, which is not sustainable. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether $75,000 would go into the OPEB savings account when new employees are hired, to which the Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like to see the final projections; he has reservations there are options encouraged the Interim Finance Director to play with the numbers. Mayor Johnson stated the numbers need to be run out to see if there are big payments in 30 years; the upfront investment might need to be bigger ; inquired whether the intent is to actually prepay when new employees are hired. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 29 February 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-07,29,"some point. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the benefit is offered to all employees of the City of Alameda, to which the Human Resources Director responded the benefit has been negotiated and offered to Public Safety employees. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has concerns about the proposal at the policy level; bringing outside people in for the highest level positions, which works for other agencies, chips away and somehow reduces the benefit of long-term employees; the lifetime medical benefit is only offered to public safety and is extremely expensive; there is a significant amount of other post-employment benefits (OPEB), which the medical coverage falls under; she will not be supporting the matter; most people do not receive lifetime medical benefits; continuing to lower the bar of who the benefit is offered to is a problem. Councilmember Daysog stated that he can understand making changes for the head positions; he is not convinced the changes should be for the Assistant or Deputy positions; the City should be encouraging people to grow through the ranks, rather than slotting people from outside into the higher positions; he understands why the packages are needed in order to recruit for top positions. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter is for the Fire Chief. The Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative; stated the matter provides service credit for someone being hired at the top position; the benefit only applies to someone coming from the outside to be the Fire or Police Chief in order to provide credit for time served in another agency as an Assistant or Deputy. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the position would need to be equivalent, not lateral and is a move up in position. The City Manager stated the resolution needs to be changed in order to reflect the recommendation of the credit only being provided if the employee had a similar type of benefits from another agency; the City Manager recommendation includes the employee only receiving credit if they had retiree health benefits in another organization. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the matter due to the clarification provided by staff. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of adoption of the resolution. The motion failed due to a lack of second. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for approving the matter with a sunset after five years. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 21",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-05-09,29,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MUTES OF Wednesday May 9, 2018 6:30 p.m. contact me or Victoria. I think just contact me and I'll make sure that you get all the details so that you can be on there. The other thing is, we did all this work to move the schedule to the odd months of the year, not knowing that the Transportation Commission, which normally has their meeting on the fourth Wednesday of the month, doesn't like to do that in November because it interferes with Thanksgiving. So they moved it to the second Wednesday of the month, before we got it. And when I pointed that out, they said, ""You're going to have to move yours."" So you need to think about when you want to have it in November. And you can't act on it now because it's not an agenda item. But take a look at your calendars and see if you want to have it on the first or third Wednesday of the month for November, or just skip it, because we will have had enough meetings. So just keep that in mind for. Do you want me to put it on agenda item for next month? Beth Kenny: Yes. We can vote about that. Thank you very much. Lisa Hall: I just want to say something as far as Paratransit, I forgot. I guess it was Victoria that gave us the pink application for Paratransit and her business cards. So we had a whole pile that we gave out on Tuesday at the food bank. And I only put one at a time because many of the people come and just take one. But this made the people ask and it was wonderful. I said, ""It's open to everyone that is a senior or disabled,"" and boom, it was like, ""Oh, my dad, or my mom, or me,"" and it was like, ""There you go"". And I was like, ""This is Here you go."" So getting the word out again, a little more for people, so it was good. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS Beth Kenny: Okay, that actually brings us to agenda item number seven, announcements. Commissioner Brillinger. Arnold Brillinger: Okay. Lisa, were those the schedules that you had? Lisa Hall: No, they were the actual applications. We have the schedules too, but the actual pink application that they have to fill out so they can get on the program. Arnold Brillinger: Oh, okay. Lisa Hall: And then her business card too, so if they had a question. Arnold Brillinger: Okay, because that's very important. We need to get as many people involved in the taxi program. Lisa Hall: Right. Arnold Brillinger: And also the MRTIP. Lisa Hall: Right. We have that on our bulletin at the church. We have them up there, free, free. Arnold Brillinger: Yes, because they're very good services. I've had a couple of people that I know that have used them just recently and they had nothing but good to say, compared to getting home 05/30/18 Page 29 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-05-09.pdf CityCouncil,2007-01-02,29,"Counci lmember deHaan stated public transportation options would be available if the project becomes all-successful. Vice Mayor Tam stated she has concerns with terms such as ""being wildly successful""; transportation plans are tied to some type of trip generation or mitigation measure; inquired whether there is some way to project the development eventually have the option of spreading the impact to other development projects. The Supervising Planner responded no commitments are made in the environmental documents. Vice Mayor Tam stated her issue is nexus; linkage needs to be established between what is required of the development project and what is attributable. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated a legal nexus is not required as long as there is a contractual agreement that has been negotiated; the criteria of performance that exceeds the Performa would be more precise when staff comes back in two weeks. Mr. Marshall stated the harder part would be to define the performance standard to the TDM Program. Councilmember deHaan inquired about the measurement criteria. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the DA would reference the fact that the evaluation criteria would be developed by the Transportation Commission and Planning Board as part of the approval of the TDM Program that would be presented as part of the first development plan. Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of postponing the final passage for DA 06-0003 with direction to staff to develop alternatives on modifying the development agreement to reflect discussions regarding tying the TDM Program measures to some performance objectives in terms of the pace in which the development proceeds. Mayor Johnson stated three options would come back to Council; requested that the TDM Program Coordinator make a recommendation to Council each year on the TDM Program and budget. Councilmember Matarrese requested Vice Mayor Tam to confirm that the motion is to amend DA-06-0003 to include three options to increase the TDM Program at year five; said agreement would come back in two weeks; the TDM Program coordinator would make a Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 29 January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf CityCouncil,2005-08-16,29,"would allow Catellus to explore a change in the current DDA. The Development Services Director responded that the amendment would allow Catellus to explore re-entitlement of the existing property. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether there would be a public process that would allow people to comment, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Matarrese stated that he wanted people to be aware that the matter would be publicly noticed and that Catellus would be given a year to provide more information. Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions Commissioner deHaan - 1. AGENDA ITEMS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 2:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 2 August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf CityCouncil,2005-07-19,29,"The City Attorney stated said matter could be included in the resolution. Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Matarrese stated Council should discuss the matter first. Mayor Johnson suggested the resolution discussed tonight be brought back and a separate discussion be held on delegating AP&T's legal counsel. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired as to the difference between acting by resolution and by motion. Mayor Johnson stated resolutions are easier for City staff to track. The City Clerk noted resolutions are permanent records of the City Council. Councilmember deHaan stated the proposal includes quarterly reporting requirements; that he would prefer monthly reporting. Mayor Johnson stated that monthly reporting was acceptable to her, including the current budget on the status of the overall litigation contingency budget for not only Risk Management, but also AP&T. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Council needs all of the numbers for all of the different entities that are part of legal budget the Council appropriated. Councilmember Daysog stated the City Attorney's office has always delivered; the challenge is there is a desire to have more involvement in oversight. Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred; stated that the action is not due to a deficiency in the City Attorney's office, rather it is the Council following what the Charter sets out as its role and bringing practices in line. Mayor Johnson concurred; inquired whether the matter could return at the next Council meeting. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 29 July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf CityCouncil,2016-01-05,29,"The Assistant City Attorney stated Costa Hawkins is silent about whether or not a cap can be done on the amount a landlord can increase the rent for a new tenant. Mayor Spencer stated the landlord representative indicated Civil Code Section 1946 prevents a new tenant from being charged more than the previous tenant. The Assistant City Attorney stated there seems to be disagreement about the Civil Code section. Mayor Spencer stated the landlords made the offer; questioned why the City would not do so. The Assistant City Attorney stated the representative's application of the section is broader than what he feels comfortable with. Councilmember Daysog stated the matter should be further researched; the City's legal expert needs to feel comfortable. The Assistant City Attorney stated there are no cases on the issue; since the matter will be coming back, there can be further discussion about whether or not there needs to be a cap for new tenants. Mayor Spencer stated that she wants something. Councilmember Oddie stated there has to be something. Mayor Spencer stated preventing an increase is a deterrent; no cause evictions cannot be used to double rent for the new tenant. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the matter is the root of the problem. The Community Development Director inquired whether Council wants to allow no cause evictions but require the rent for the new tenant to be exactly the equivalent of the existing tenant. Mayor Spencer responded the landlord representative stated rent would not be more than the prior tenant's rent. In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry whether the amount would be the rent paid by the prior tenant plus the allowable maximum, the City Attorney stated the City does not have an allowable maximum at this point. Mayor Spencer questioned why the City would not leave the amount the same as the prior tenant. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 29 January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-15,29,"Following the Closed Session, Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council received a briefing on a matter of anticipated litigation and provided direction to Legal Counsel; and regarding Real Property, the Council and Commission received a briefing from its real property negotiator regarding potential sale of City-owned property to Warmington Homes. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 2:10 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf CityCouncil,2006-06-20,29,"Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner inquired whether the Risk Management Analyst position would be brought back to Council with more detail, to which the City Manager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how many employees are in the City Attorney's office, to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded seven. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether all seven employees are full time, to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the City Attorney's office had any part-time staff, to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded a law clerk. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the seven employees include the attorney starting in July. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the new attorney would bring staffing up to eight tonight's authorization will bring the City Attorney and Risk Management staffing level to nine. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested that an organizational chart be provided when the matter returns to Council. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 15 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,29,"Pri Courte 1-6 at Coine: Lonnia Camalo pickle We, the ball undersigned. coll on the City of Alameda and APPD Leydecker pars courts looking into courts since the Longfellow courts are already home to picide ball. We request the city and ARPD loak into other solutions for the picide ball demand and we also request to drop the consider ation to converting court 14 or any of the tennie courts at WAPA. Krusi or into alter Apm and moeting an all the higher demand for tennis courts that has also occurred this year. The wait timer to play tennis at WAPA, Krusi, Leydecker are excessive during the weeiddays College of Alameda, Navel weokende. base The courte, existing tennis courts are not enough to meet this demand for tennis courts currently in Alameda Tennis courts currently not being used: AHS EHS Full name Postcode Email address Signature Afroakhan 94536 atroz Khann segnal Pathan sero Zom after Larry Carter 94602 Bill Griffith 94501 bebopbillehotmail.com By Kern hey 94607 Kevmnoame@yahoo.com Ve Ken Fegel 94501 Ken@katad.com KotutAde 9450) the Permany Trink 94557 phining trink 9 wait con pl Due TIEN NOUVEN 94501 ticnusa65@gmail.com here GREa SORRELL 94501 Tazal Hannah Miller 94501 hwbanana@mi.com like Olesia Kruglov 94501 Olesia Krugloregualican or hard 94602 laurenblauchardampe A grail MarineTam 94602 wash.ingtan883@gmail.com am MT Robillin 94501 rob.currton1@gmail.com pll Published and promoted by the Alameda Happy Tennis Group at Fairfield Tennis Complex When completo, please return to: The Alamada Happy Tenns Group at Tennis Complex or enall directly to For mare nio plense jein tur Fanabook Group to - which or share invith",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-21,29,"(21-601) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-602) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember Daysog) Not heard. (21-603) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (21-604) Councilmember Knox White discussed City Council and School Board Subcommittee meeting; stated the School District has been meeting with Alameda County about pushing back closing Emma Hood pool due to COVID-19; the current closure is set for January; it is unclear whether the County is receptive; Encinal High School is looking to put up flood lights to have backup nighttime use of the Encinal High School pool; there is forward motion on the shared use agreement that allows the City to use Encinal High School pool for community swimming during the day; the matter should come before Council by the end of the year; announced a $290 million bond being placed on the ballot in June; discussed an AFS contract with the School District; announced 73% of students are vaccinated as of the previous week. (21-605) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement about a ribbon cutting for a new apartment building at Alameda Point; stated the units are all market rate and are helping to fund the 25% affordable units; discussed the last of the ""Starlight Movies in the Park"" event put on by the Recreation and Parks Department; stated that she attended a beach cleanup at South Shore Beach. ADJOURNMENT (21-606) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:03 a.m. in memory of Nick Bianchi. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 2021 25",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf CityCouncil,2018-04-17,29,"like to establish a protocol and practice for the review and have it be transparent. Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of directing staff to look at adopting the sample ordinance for a Sanctuary City contracting and investment ordinance and come back with an analysis of the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Member Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (18-242) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced she attended the League of California Cities Housing and Community Economic Development Statewide Policy Committee meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 April 17, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-17.pdf CityCouncil,2008-10-07,29,"provide their comments, all of which will feed into the Draft Master Plan due on Nov 19th. Member Gilmore asked if the Nov. 19th deadline was enough time. Ms. Potter acknowledged it is aggressive time frame. Mr. Keliher said that the purpose of the public meetings was to listen and receive, and SunCal hopes to receive a number of different comments from all of the different groups, and needs to time to analyze, make changes so that these comments can be considered in developing the draft master plan. He said they are committed to 11/19 date. Member Gilmore was concerned that it's not enough time and asked if the Board and staff was opposed to an extension? Mr. Brandt supported the extension because it would mean receiving a better product. Ms. Potter agreed and requested that the mandatory milestone be modified to extend the submission of the draft master plan to Dec. 19th, 2008. Ms. Freilich requested that language should be added to protect their interest; that as long as negotiations with the Navy continue and are fruitful, SunCal would not be in default. Mr. Brandt, and stated that the City should be included as a party in the same language. Ms. Potter wanted to note that there will be a correction made to an oversight in a sentence included in the ENA, per Senior Assistant City Attorney, Donna Mooney. Chair Johnson acknowledged the notation. There were several speakers on this item: Philip Tribuzio, Alameda, spoke regarding cleanup of Alameda Point scheduled for completion in 2011, which is beyond the deadline for conveyance of the property. Arthur Lipow, Alameda, was concerned about, and against the partnership between DE Shaw and SunCal. He discussed an alternative and would like to see a public trust situation like at the Presidio. Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, discussed health and safety codes, traffic issues, and clean-up of the Alameda Point and would like more transparency in General Plan and Business Plan. Joel Ramland, Alameda, was not in favor of the agreement between SunCal & DE Shaw and discussed its financial status. Bill Smith, Alameda, spoke about light industry. Member Matarrese asked how much SunCal has spent to date. Ms. Potter replied that SunCal has spent approximately $3M to date with a non-refundable $1M deposit. Member Matarrese asked if we own the materials produced by SunCal and its consultants pertaining to Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 10 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-06-15,29,"Not heard. COUNCIL REFERRALS (21-431) Consider Adoption of Resolution Supporting the Goal of Reaching 100% Zero Emission Vehicle Sales in California by 2030. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft) Not heard. (21-432) Considering Having an Introduction and Update from the New Police Chief regarding Strategies to Address Crimes. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-433) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-434) Consider Directing Staff to Publically Share Information on Parking Recreational Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-435) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2021 20",CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-02,29,"The Assistant City Attorney responded the current way the ordinance is written is the tenants can exchange staying a month for a month less in relocation assistance. The Community Development Director stated direction from Council is needed if there would be an exemption for mom and pop landlords. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that tenants need cash to relocate; to leave it up to tenants and landlords to work out on their own is not fair; she agrees with the staff recommendation. Mayor Spencer inquired if Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft is requesting to leave it the tenant's choice, which is what the ordinance currently states, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie stated if a landlord is willing to give up the income by taking the unit off the market, they can afford to pay relocation fees; mom and pops violate the rules too and the City has to protect all tenants. Councilmember Daysog stated that most mom and pops are good landlords and the City should recognize that; he would like the small mom and pop landlords exempted from the relocation benefit or given consideration where time is given. Vice Mayor Matarrese concerned with Councilmember Daysog; stated the distinction of mom and pop landlords needs to be defined; the issue should be subject to mediation to allow for a combination of finance and time and worked out on a case by case basis. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has heard that people are afraid to go to the RRAC; she would like to give the staff recommendation a year to see if it works. Mayor Spencer stated she, Councilmember Oddie, and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcarft are in agreement with staff's recommendation. The Community Development Director requested Council direction on the issue of no cap for rent increases; stated the cap was set for when a landlord has to initiate the RRAC process at 5%. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there was no discussion on the issue; she agrees the 5% threshold is reasonable. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether landlords who do not raise the rent for several years would be able to do a higher rent increase like in Los Gatos. The Community Development Director responded said information would be taken into account by the RRAC when making a decision. Mayor Spencer stated Los Gatos' rent control is not a trigger, it is a cap. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2020-07-21,29,"Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Greenway is amenable to card check should it be requested. The City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation, provided the two provisions of COVID-19 and card check neutrality language are added to the agreement. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. *** Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft recessed the special meeting at 10:20 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:19 p.m. *** (20-541) Recommendation to: 1) Accept the City Manager's Report on Plans to Appoint a Steering Committee and; 2) Provide Further Feedback and Input on Staff's Work to Engage the Community in the Development of Options on the Future of Policing in the City of Alameda and Developing Work Plans to Address the Following Topics: A. Unbundling Services Currently Delivered by the Police Department; B. a Review of Police Department Policies and Practices; C. Police Department Accountability and Oversight; D. A Review of Laws that Criminalize Survival; and E. Systemic and Community Racism/Anti-Racism The Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Vella stated there has been much deliberation on committee structure and concern about the committee selection process; stated it is difficult to figure out who is involved or the outcomes; Council must surrender to the community-led process and allow for as much input as possible; expressed support for individuals who are not always leading conversations to be framing the conversations. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see a robust ability to email City management and indicate interest; expressed support for the selection being made by people of Color as opposed to staff advising City management; expressed support for new involvement in the process. Vice Mayor Knox White stated the key aspect of Brown Act bodies is notification and ensuring meetings are public; expressed support for Council discussion on the committee acting as a Brown Act body; stated that he is not clear about the committee not being a Brown Act body. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 7 July 21, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf CityCouncil,2018-03-06,29,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) TUESDAY--MARCH 6, 2018- -6:59 P.M. Mayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer - 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Spencer announced the Financial Statements [paragraph no. 18-108 CC/18-06 SACIC was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*18-107 CC/18-05 SACIC) Minutes of the Joint City Council and SACIC Meeting Held on February 6, 2018. Approved. (18-108 CC/18-06 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Audited Financial Statements and Compliance Reports. The City Auditor made comments regarding liabilities that will be in upcoming Financial Statements; urged caution on future budgets. Mayor/Chair Spencer requested clarification on the amount of the unfunded pension liabilities. The City Auditor responded the net pension liabilities is $227,324,871 Other Post- Employment Benefits (OPEB) is $39,668,326. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission March 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-03-06.pdf CityCouncil,2005-05-17,29,"ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the regular meeting at 12:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 29 May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf CityCouncil,2008-06-17,29,"possible; the crises is here. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the public is starting to understand the challenges. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions with direction provided tonight; stated that he would not reiterate all points, but summarized the following direction: 1) supplement the $300,000 [from fees) in Fire Department overtime funds with the reinstatement of the ] Golf ROI and surcharge; 2) require matching funds [of $3,800] for the Museum subsidy [and reduce the allocation by $7,500]; 3) use grants or savings to re-adjust the Tree Maintenance Program so that young trees are pruned and trees are replaced; 4) bring back information for putting aside a seed amount for the Trust Fund for Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) ; 5) bring back operational plans for sustaining services long-term; 6) look for funding to light the tennis court [proposed to be turned off]; 7) bring back the Vehicle Replacement Plan, including potential reduction in the fleet 8) bring back an analysis of increasing fire staff by two to three per shift; stated the motion includes approving the numbers presented to Council [including changes outlined in the staff report : allocation of $93,340 to the Police Department for crossing guards; use of $25,000 in Meyers Housing funding for a Recreation Leader] and adoption of resolution Establishing Guidelines for Reimbursement of Per Diem Allowance for City of Alameda Business Travel Vice Mayor/Boar Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint City Council, APFA and ARRA Meeting and Annual CIC Meeting at 12:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk APFA and CIC Secretary The agenda for meeting this was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 19 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,29,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2017-04-12,29,"ITEM 2-B COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES MEETING MINUTES OF Wednesday, April 12, 2017 6:30 p.m. Beth Kenny: Are there any other announcements? Then I move that we adjourn. Jenny Linton: Second. Beth Kenny: I think everybody seconded that. [laughter] We're all in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kerry Parker City Staff Liaison Commission on Disability Issues 05/24/17 Page 29 of 29",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2017-04-12.pdf CityCouncil,2009-10-20,29,"redevelopment areas; questioned whether all redevelopment areas would be treated the same; stated that she needs better context. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the housing allocation does not just apply to affordable units, but all allocations; the City met some allocations with Alameda Point because of job generation; the Association of Bay Area Governments did not agree with said argument. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the project in the 2600 block of Clement Avenue took a lot of liberty with the current ordinance; the building is four stories high. The Planning Services Manager stated the project is a commercial project with one housing unit within a manufacturing zone height limit; the entire area is being rezoned. (09-423 CC/ARRA) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager/Interir Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Contract with Environmental Science Associates for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for Alameda Point Redevelopment Project in an Amount Not to Exceed $2 Million. *** (09-424 CC / ARRA / 09-46 CIC) Councilmember / Authority Member / Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. *** The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated moving forward on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is important because Oakland Chinatown organizations are worried that the City is not moving forward. Councilmember/Board Member Matarrese inquired whether the City would own the EIR even though the cost of the EIR would be reimbursed by SunCal, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Board Member Tam stated Oakland Chinatown is urging the City to move forward with the EIR; knowing the type of project would be helpful the Council received a letter from the same group [Oakland Chinatown] asking the City not place the initiative on the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-20,28,"Consent Calendar. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined Alameda Police Department having a table at the Alameda Job Fair; noted that she was pleased to hear both the City Manager and Police Chief were present. Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined a ""Coffee with a Cop"" event at Starbucks Coffee. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (21-507) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to the Lease with Dreyfuss Capital Partners, a California Limited Liability Company to Extend the Term for Five Years for Building 29, Located at 1701 Monarch Street, at Alameda Point. Not heard. (21-508) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Modify Public Art Requirements, as Recommended by the Planning Board. Introduced. The Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation. In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Development Manager stated deaccession is the removal of public art from the City's public art collection. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City has performed deaccession. The Development Manager responded in the negative; stated deaccession is generally performed in a variety of ways; the process is lengthy and governed by State and federal law. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is prepared to support staff's recommendation; he supports being able to move forward without Council approval under the City Manager's approved spending limit; however, he would like to propose requiring Council notification in the event a Call for Review is needed; Council receives calls related to negative community impacts; it is a bad look for Council to respond to calls by indicating unawareness; Calls for Review add balance. The City Attorney stated the proposed recommendation from Councilmember Knox White can be implemented in two ways: 1) Council direction to staff or 2) amending the ordinance; inquired whether Councilmember Knox White has a preference on how to proceed. Councilmember Knox White responded that he would like to move forward with a first Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 21",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-24,28,"Councilmember Oddie stated the cleanup should be kept separate; cleanup to the rent ordinance was lost. In response to the Assistant City Manager's inquiry regarding timing, the Economic Development Manager stated staff was planning to come back on September 4th, but she would prefer to make it the first meeting in October due to the amount of work. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the second meeting in September, the Economic Development Manager stated staff is working on arts and minimum wage items for said date. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the ordinance would require two readings, to which the Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the cleanup can be presented at the first meeting in September, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; noted zoning changes would have to go to the Planning Board. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like the matter expedited; the cleanup is not as critical; her preference would be to do the substantive work. Vice Mayor Vella stated some of the substantive work, such as adult use, would not go to the Planning Board; only the zoning has to go to the Planning Board. The Acting City Manager stated everything needs to be approved to go out with RFP. The Economic Development Manager stated staff would shoot for the October meeting to allow time to go to the Planning Board. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (18-449) The Acting City Manager announced information would be posted on the website regarding signature gatherers misrepresenting the McKay property initiative. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (18-450) Consider Drafting a Letter to Federal Representatives Supporting Congressional Bill S. 3036, the ""Keep Families Together Act."" (Councilmember Oddie) Councilmember Oddie made brief comments regarding the referral. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval [of drafting a letter]. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf CityCouncil,2019-03-19,28,"Dispense Non-Medicinal or ""Adult Use"" Cannabis, (f) Modify Requirements for Off- Island Delivery, and (g) Make Any Other Related Amendments; and (B) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by (1) Amending Section 30-10 (Cannabis) to (a) Add Cannabis Retail Businesses as Conditionally Permitted Uses in the C-1, Neighborhood Business, and C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing Zoning Districts, (b) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Enable Cannabis Retail Businesses to Dispense Non-Medicinal or ""Adult Use"" Cannabis, (c) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Remove the Dispersion Requirement; and (d) Make Any Other Related Amendments; and Consider Phasing Implementation of the Cap on the Number of Dispensary/Delivery Permits, Through the Request for Proposals Process, and Provide Direction to Staff, as Necessary. Not heard. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (19-177) The Interim City Manager made brief comments about his time as Interim City Manager. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (19-178) Consider Raising the Rate of the Hotel Tax (Transient Occupancy Tax). (Councilmember Daysog) Councilmember Daysog stated the item would be placed on the April 16, 2019 agenda. (19-179) Consider Directing the City Manager to Create Breastfeeding Locations, Baby Changing Stations and Gender Neutral Bathrooms. (Councilmembers Vella and Oddie) Councilmembers Vella and Oddie made brief comments regarding the referral. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the referral. Councilmember Vella seconded, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (19-180) Status of the Emma Hood Swim Center at Alameda High School. Vice Mayor Knox White gave a brief update. (19-181) Review and Discuss Charter Amendment Timeline and Issues Proposed by the Council Subcommittee. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf GolfCommission,2018-02-15,28,"Exhibit B CORICA Chuck Corica Park PA RK 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road Alameda, CA 94502 To: Amy Wooldridge, City of Alameda From: Ken Campbell, Greenway Golf Date: February 7, 2018 Re: South Course Proposed Alameda Resident Golf Rates Amy, In preparation for the opening of the South Course, Greenway Golf is submitting for review and approval Alameda resident walking golf fees of $40 per player Monday-Friday and $50 per player on Saturday, Sunday & Holidays. Below is an outline of the proposed resident fees and other resident comparison courses. In reviewing other city resident rates, it is important to note the other courses only offer one course as Alameda offers two. The strategy at Alameda is to offer separate resident rates for North and South courses reflective of their design, condition and quality. The North course is positioned as the lower priced of the two Alameda courses and in line with other comparable local resident courses including Metro and Monarch. The South course is positioned to be of good value for new construction and quality conditions. Alameda Residents Green Fee Rates and other Comparable Course Comparisons Property City Local Resident Mon-Thu Friday Weekend Corica South Proposed Alameda 40 40 50 Corica North Current Alameda 29 29 37 Metropolitan Golf Links Oakland 30 30 55* Monarch Bay Golf San Leandro 27 27 44 Presidio Golf Course San Francisco 54 80* 82* Callippe Preserve Pleasanton 40 40 56 * Mandatory cart fee included Sincerely, Ken Compbell Ken Campbell Greenway Golf",GolfCommission/2018-02-15.pdf CityCouncil,2019-07-16,28,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether any voter education has been produced to date, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. The Public Works Director continued the Power Point presentation. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the amount for Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is accurate. The Public Works Director responded the figure is an average over the course of 1 year. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the 2 different rate structures are defined or determined. The Public Works Director responded fees are developed per parcel for residential as well as permeability. Jerry Bradshaw, SCI Consulting Group, responded a statistical approach is taken; parcels are broken into different groups; all sizes of parcels have been reviewed; a statistical sampling of parcels has been taken which measures rooftops and driveways. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired the tradeoff for selecting a specific fee versus a range of fees and why one would be selected over the other. The Public Works Director responded the range of fees allows Council more discretion at the October 1st public hearing to set a fee within the provided range; stated if a fee is set now, Council is bound by the decided fee at the October 1st public hearing. Vice Mayor Knox White stated there is confusion caused by sending a letter that says $45-78 or an expectation of a lower rate versus deciding a set fee. The City Manager stated that he recommended the options of either setting a specific fee or providing a range; in his experience both options do not have an advantage or disadvantage. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there will be new information in October. The Public Works Director responded survey data will be provided; stated there will be a better sense from the community; a couple community meetings will be held between now and October; there will be more anecdotal information. Stated constituents find the services as essential and support moving forward with property owners voting on the matter: Ruth Abbe, Alameda. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined page 7 of the staff report; inquired whether there is desire to move forward. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf CityCouncil,2015-01-21,28,"There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 28 January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf CityCouncil,2021-10-19,28,"judicial action for bonds; if Council approves filing a judicial validation action, bonds must exist as a requirement under State law; staff has provided assurances verbally and in Section 5 of the resolution that the matter will return to Council before finalization occurs; there will be nothing for staff to validate if Section 1 of the resolution is removed. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the process has to take place in order to begin; checkpoints occur in the timeline. Mr. Morales stated it is Council's legal and fiduciary duty to review the Authorizing Statement; a bond cannot be sold without Council authorizing the Authorizing Statement; the document has not been generated; there is currently no way the City could legally issue or sell bonds without coming back to Council. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (21-664) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, expressed concern about information not being released regarding the Mario Gonzales investigation. COUNCIL REFERRALS (21-665) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-666) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard. (21-667) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard. (21-668) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember Daysog). Not heard. (21-669) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023- 2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog). Not heard. (21-670) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Daysog) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (21-671) Councilmember Knox White made an announcement regarding the AC Transit Inter- Agency Liaison meeting and an upcoming special meeting of the City Council and School Board Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf CityCouncil,2021-03-16,28,"write a memo indicating areas in which advice could be given along the lines the City Attorney mentioned to begin to address the issue that was raised by the Committee members about the criminalization of poverty. The City Attorney stated a section on the topic can be included when reports return to Council. Councilmember Knox White stated an issue somewhat tied to the matter is diversion programs and traffic enforcement, such as whether tinted windows need to be enforced when other drivers are speeding. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of directing staff to identify a traffic enforcement policy that focuses on safety related citations, as well as any diversion ideas within traffic enforcement and working with the Transportation Commission; in addition, he would suggest getting a report back on Universal Basic Income (UBI); he heard a lot of support for the conversation; he did not hear Council take up his idea for a catalytic converter rebate or other ideas to avoid crimes; noted the Review Committee will take a long time to get going and that he would like the City Manager to return with ideas in the short term about how the City will shift and change review of the practices of the Police Department so there is civilian review out of the City Manager's office; he does not know what it looks like and will leave it up to the City Manager; he would like a report back on the matter as well. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated catalytic converters are an important issue; she would like add that the City support making it so that catalytic converters cannot be turned in; other States are starting to do so and the legislature should be asked to look into making it illegal for scrap metal people to purchase catalytic converters. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is happy to amend the motion to add the matter to the Legislative Agenda; he thinks there already are a lot of rules around it, but he is not an expert. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the catalytic converter shield rebate; stated that she is not sure if it was included in the motion. Councilmember Knox White stated he left it in the motion as something staff could come back with and ideas how to do, along with other crime prevention ideas. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the intent for traffic related issues which are not safety related, such as non-moving vehicular violations, whether Officers would not enforce violations; stated his intent is that the Officer still enforces it, but per the advice coming from the City Attorney's office something other than issuing a citation can be done; the Officers still need to inform people about violations. Councilmember Knox White stated his motion included direction for staff to come back Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2017-11-07,28,"delivery of a substantial amount of cash is prohibited. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council is okay with leaving the language as is, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella agreed. The Community Development Director inquired whether Council would like to strike the word food, to which Council responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie moved introduction of the cannabis ordinance with the amendments. Mayor Spencer seconded the motion which carried by the following voice votes: Ayes: Councilmember Oddie, Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2. The Community Development Director stated Council needs to vote on the authorization to do the fee study. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of authorizing staff to conduct the fee study. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. *** (17-671) The City Manager stated staff cannot address the pension item at the next meeting; inquired whether Council would be willing to hear the matter tonight. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would agree to hearing the pension item. Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the pension item. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion which carried with the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. *** *** (17-672) Motion Spencer called a recess at 2:17 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 2:24 a.m. (17-673) Recommendation to Receive an Update on Pension Cost Savings Strategies and Invest General Fund Reserves Committed to Unfunded Pension Liabilities. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 November 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-05-04,28,"lower the Board compensation and reinvest saved funds into the training budget; discussed letters being sent in about lead and other heavy metals in baby food and advocating for more enforcement around the matter. ADJOURNMENT (21-322) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:29 p.m. in memory of Juelle Ann Boyer. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 May 4, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf CityCouncil,2020-06-02,28,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Clerk is willing to continue the role, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined a Section on page 6 related to effective problem solving. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the motion includes Council comments, to which Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (20-381) The City Manager stated the Slow Streets program has expanded into Phase 2; COVID testing sites are being looked into for Alameda; the current activity level is low with no incidents. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (20-382) Katherine Allen, Alameda, inquired about laws giving citizens the ability to protect themselves and their property against those in violation of the law. COUNCIL REFERRALS (20-383) Consider Amending Sunshine Ordinance Section 2-91.4 (f) Pertaining to Special Meetings. (Councilmember Vella) Councilmember Vella made brief comments on the referral. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for staff or the City Attorney to look into the item and bring back information for Council consideration; stated that she is unclear what is being asked of the Open Government Commission (OGC). Councilmember Vella stated the OGC is looking at the Sunshine Ordinance; expressed support for staff looking into different possible noticing requirements; direction provided could be simple; Charter discussions would either require 10 day notice or be announced at a regularly agendized meeting. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated more nuances need to be addressed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 15 June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf CityCouncil,2022-02-01,28,"ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 1, 2022 28",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf CityCouncil,2022-05-03,28,"Expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated creating a fair and expanded housing program is critical; many people are looking for affordable housing; the City has a chance to address and right structural racism which has been built into the housing plan; urged the plan move forward: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda. Councilmember Knox White stated that he has heard comments not supporting rezoning the R-1 through R-6 areas; inquired the process and response if the City submits a draft HE to HCD that does not include the residential areas. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded HCD would send the draft HE right back to the City; stated the City would essentially state that it is keeping Measure A/Article 26 in-tact for residential areas; HCD has already stated the approach is not acceptable; acceptance is not related to numbers or allocation, it is related to fair housing; HCD states the City cannot prohibit multi-family housing in residential densities which support affordable housing in all residential districts; the approach is unfair to those who need affordable housing by Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH); HCD has been consistent in its approach and attitude around what Alameda needs to do; discussed HCD's 2012 letter. Councilmember Knox White stated the AFFH language requires cities to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers which restrict access to opportunity; inquired the location of the areas referenced in the statement. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded prohibiting multi-family housing and not allowing residential densities that support affordable housing are barriers to AFFH; stated west Alameda has a higher percentage of lower-income households; continuing the trend of placing all affordable housing on the West End does not affirmatively further fair housing. Councilmember Knox White stated most of the patterns of segregation related to housing show up in the residential districts; in order to overcome patterns, the City will be required to do something; expressed support for the number of public hearings being held and the effort to try to balance State requirements; stated information about educational opportunities recommends considering encouraging open enrollment in Alameda Unified School District (AUSD); inquired whether the City is not taking a stance that the schools on the West End are not as good as the East End; stated the staff recommendation is that the City will support AUSD and address educational outcomes as opposed to telling people to drive to different schools. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the clarification will be added as cleanup language to be made by staff before submitting it to HCD. Councilmember Knox White stated there is a lot of confusion related to AFFH; expressed support for clarification related to the approach not being based on numbers, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 3, 2022 24",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-27,28,"Councilmember Tam stated the Subcommittee process eight months; the Subcommittee consulted with all departments; the issues [proposed tonight] did not come up; the proposed amendments have not gone through a fully transparent process and with a meaningful opportunity for public input; that she has not had a full briefing on the implications of the Seal Beach issue [noted by Mr. Weaver]. The City Attorney stated that she could provide a briefing; in addition, Mr. Wiley, the City's Labor Attorney, is also here to provide input. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she appreciates the City Attorney's foresight in having Labor Counsel available for a briefing, which does not solve her biggest issue; the Subcommittee went through an exhaustive process to the point of polling different departments to see if anything else should be added; that she does not think the issue should be taken lightly; the public needs to have the opportunity to ask questions and be educated; amending the Charter should not be rushed; 2008 was the first time that the Charter was amended; amending the Charter without having the same process the first time around is not good public policy. The Interim City Manager stated that she addressed the proposed Public Utilities Board (PUB) amendment in the past. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see the proposed PUB amendment go forward because of the inherent conflict of interest; people have time to discuss the issue between now and November; the PUB item is the simplest one. Councilmember Tam stated that she disagrees that the PUB issue is simple. Councilmember Gilmore inquired why the City Manager was put on the PUB; further inquired why the City Manager would be a PUB member if not a voting member. The Interim City Manager responded the Alameda Municipal Power General Manager thought that having the City Manager be an ex-officio would be helpful; stated that she is not aware of any instance where the City Manager has voted; the Charter is a living, breathing document; the opportunity to amend the Charter only comes around every couple of years unless a special election is called, which would be pricey. Councilmember Gilmore inquired how long staff has been working on the amendments. The City Attorney responded some of the proposed amendments have been in the works for over a year; stated the language has not sprung up overnight; the language is a product of concerted staff effort; unfortunately, the Charter Subcommittee declined to meet this year; the General Election would be the cheapest opportunity to do any Charter amendments; the proposed amendments have been brought forth Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 28 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf CityCouncil,2010-04-20,28,"State law; to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the negative; stated the 15% versus 25% inclusionary housing issue is not in State law, is a separate issue and was a separate modification. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he understands Mr. Faye is saying SunCal would have acted differently and not put Measure B on the ballot had the City enacted the ordinance earlier; nothing is different; the same outcome is possible today as six months ago without the ordinance; that he has a hard with taking that as a real answer. Mr. Faye stated that he tries to give real answers; the adoption by the City of the ability to modify the Charter through Council action versus an election of the people is very different than isolating and focusing on the density bonus provisions; it is very interesting for the City Attorney/Legal Counsel to point out that density bonus provisions have been in State law for a long time, which is correct; the ability to implement that was limited in Alameda by the City Charter; until the middle of December, the Municipal Code was not modified to comply with State law to allow for modifications to the City Charter to accomplish the density bonus provisions in State law relevant to Measure A. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that is where there is a fundamental disagreement on the interpretation and application of State law. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the City's density bonus did not modify Measure A; only a vote of the citizens can modify Measure A; Council does not have the authority to make an amendment or modification to Measure A; the density bonus ordinance simply implements existing State law and creates the opportunity for a developer entitled to a density bonus to place or site additional market rate units that comprise the bonus; Council has to grant a waiver if the developer shows that it is necessary to waive the multi-family restriction under Measure A in order to fit the development, including the new market rate units, on the site. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether that would have applied in June before the ordinance was passed in mid December. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative; stated the ordinance just makes it easier, more reader friendly and makes the process consistent so that the community does not get a different answer from the Community Development Department. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the issue that needs to be really clear is that the Council action in December did not really change that; even June or two years before, the same thing could have been done by any developer under State law that was not tailored to Alameda laws. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 8 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf CityCouncil,2007-12-04,28,"The Finance Director responded $2.2 million is from Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) and is scheduled to be repaid in 2009; the remainder is all redevelopment agency loans. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Public Safety equates to approximately 60% of the budget and 30% of the staffing; the out years obligation is concerning; Public Safety retirement funds are escalating. The Finance Director stated the actuarial evaluation was received in October from the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) ; the City's contribution rate for Public Safety is remaining very close to 30% and is not increasing or decreasing significantly. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the dollar amount increases because of salary increases. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether immediate action is necessary to the extent of hiring freezes, etc. The Finance Director responded department heads have been requested to restrain spending; stated discretionary spending should be postponed. The City Manager/Executive Director stated department heads have been advised that a minimum of 1.5% needs to be saved; the budget is reviewed at weekly meetings; more changes may be necessary mid- year. louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that out years are a real concern; different plans will need to be developed; requested elaboration on Proposition 1A. The Finance Director stated the report includes an excellent description of Proposition 1A; the Governor has to declare that there is a severe State fiscal hardship the State can temporarily suspend Proposition 1A basic protection of property tax; the Legislature has to agree by a two-thirds vote; a separate statute must be adopted that requires the State to repay local governments in three years and can be done only twice in ten years. Councilmember/Boaró Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he has heard about a 25% cut a 10% cut would be disastrous at a State level. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated one way to build up the General Fund reserves is by having revenues exceed Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 14 and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf CityCouncil,2011-02-15,28,"ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:25 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 13 Community Improvement Commission February 15, 2001",CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf CityCouncil,2010-03-16,28,"The Planning Services Manager responded the Collins project requested a density bonus; stated a Measure A compliant plan was submitted and was denied; a second submittal was a Measure A compliant plan and included more units than allowed under Measure A because it would be eligible for certain [density bonus] waivers, which is not what SunCal submitted. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether staff has worked with SunCal since the OEA was submitted on March 14 to determine whether there is a way to be in compliance rather than providing a brand new submittal. The Planning Services Manager responded staff cannot process a non Measure A project; stated an initiative is the only way to get the project approved; staff has met with SunCal many times and has explained the deficiency in the submittal; the Notice of Default is specific regarding some of the deficiencies; the current Density Bonus Ordinance is a bonus above either the Zoning or General Plan designation for the site. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the SunCal submittal does not include a density bonus application. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether SunCal has the opportunity to submit a density bonus application, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded SunCal has been advised that they would need to submit a base project that is Measure A compliant and then submit a density bonus application that is consistent with the Density Bonus Ordinance. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired who makes the determination on whether the Density Bonus Ordinance is applied appropriately. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded an interdepartmental team would review the matter. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the matter would come to the Council/Board/Commission at any time, to which the Interim City Manager/ Interim Executive Director responded the process is administrative. Speakers: Janet Gibson, Alameda; Andeas Cluver, Alameda County Building Trades Council; Andrew Slivka, Carpenters Union Local 713 and Alameda resident; Frank Faye, SunCal; Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Jean Sweeney, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Ashley Jones, Alameda; Dorothy Freeman, Alameda; Rosemary McNally, Alameda; and Karen Bay, Alameda. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 3 Community Improvement Commission March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2008-06-03,28,"Vice Mayor/Chair/Authority Member Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor/Authority Member Tam stated that she appreciates the fact that there will be a challenge to define what it means to live within means. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: uncilmembers/Authority Members deHaan, Gilmore, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 4. Noes Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese. Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated that criteria needs to be set for when money is borrowed to balance the budget. Mayor/Chair/ Johnson requested that a policy regarding borrowing money be brought back. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 9:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Alameda Public Financing Authority The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 14 Financing Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf CityCouncil,2014-07-15,28,"that money is the bottom line for Alameda owners, rather than diversity. I am concerned that I will end up on the street. There have got to be some housing alternatives in this day and age. I saw the low cost studios on Park Ave and Central, but seriously, studios? Maybe for the young, but not the majority. This seems like a sad attempt to pad affordable housing numbers. It's been ridiculous now for many years at the XXX apartments! A 6% increase one year, 5% the next, back up to 6% last year, and 6% again this year. We've gone to the Alameda Housing/Rental Board 3 different times up against the property manager and XXX, all to no avail. EVEN THOUGH the Board has ""strongly recommended"" against these increases, especially since we've lived here since 1997, AND since certain concessions made by the manager made weren't fulfilled. The property isn't the oldest in town, but still could use some major improvements and upgrades without the tenants paying through the nose for them! We are S00000000 sick of hearing, ""Well, you SHOULD be paying us much more for your apartment/floor plan/view!"" after all these years, this is very frustrating, rude, and even disrespectful. We've seen this place go so far downhill that it was only approximately 25% occupied at one time in this 450-unit property! Pet rules/acceptance has come and gone, and is back on at this time. Our barbecue grills have been removed and tenants are only allowed to have the equivalent of a camp sized propane stove on patios/balconys. Plants were asked to be removed, but the new (only part-time, by the way) manager is a bit more lenient. Oh boy, the list goes on, but we feel it is all reflective in the amount of rent we ALL pay here, even with constant parking garage and car breakins, thefts and internal burglaries does all this justify the rental increases and poor treatment we get in return? We think not. ""My friend looked to get a place here last week. She was quoted $1,969/mo + pet rent for a year in a JUNIOR one bedroom---not even a one bedroom! She looked into a place here six months ago--I believe she was quoted - $1,800. She ended up renting at XXX for ~ low $1,750. Rent here has gone up nearly $200 in six months! Not to mention the theft in the buildings and additional $50/mo for an extra parking space. I cannot afford the increase, but I cannot move. Rent has gotten so expensive in alameda, I am completely stuck. Next year I anticipate moving out of alameda because l'll be priced out of my apartment. I am a ferry rider -> SF, an artist that participates in the local art community, and I'm worried I will no longer get to be a part of this community I love so much. Options are severely restricted because of dog ownership. Looking online (craigslist), there is nothing available for less than ~$2,000. 6. When I call on maintenance or repair issues, it takes to receive a response and have it fixed. 24 hours 36% Never One week 25% Other One month One month 4% Never 5% One week Other 30% 24 hours Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015 10 www.RenewedHopeHousing.org RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com | Laura Thomas (510)522-8901",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-07-11,28,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday July 11, 2018 6:30 p.m. More on 4C: Laurie Kozisek: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I did a quick check on my phone while we were talking and found out that City Council will be meeting on November 7th. I don't know why, but they'll be meeting on a Wednesday that week. So, I would recommend that you do a vote saying you would like to meet on November 21st, because there's nobody on the City calendar for November 21st. Chair Beth Kenny: Is City Council meeting November sixth? Laurie Kozisek: That's a Tuesday. Chair Beth Kenny: Right. Laurie Kozisek: I don't know, I didn't check that. I just noticed that they are meeting on a Wednesday, for some reason. Chair Beth Kenny: I was just thinking that on the 21st the 22nd is Thanksgiving. Chair Beth Kenny: So, I don't really want to do the 21st. I can recommend, I would put out there the 28th, if that's available? Laurie Kozisek: That, I believe, is available. Chair Beth Kenny: Okay, so that's the last Wednesday of November. Laurie Kozisek: Which ironically is when the Transportation Commission will not be meeting, so it will be available. Chair Beth Kenny: So, I would recommend the 28th. Do I have a second? Anto Aghapekian: Second. Chair Beth Kenny: All in favor? All: Aye. Chair Beth Kenny: Any opposed? The 28th, it is. Laurie Kozisek: I will double check that again. 6-A Façade Response Laurie Kozisek: And then, my other item, somehow it didn't get on there. For the facade response, 09/12/18 Page 28 of 29",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-07-11.pdf CityCouncil,2019-12-18,28,"City Council Workshop Workshop Report Management Partners mistakes/risk will breed an overly conservative organization and will stifle creativity and flexibility and the benefits these values can bring. Try to focus feedback on service quality, not individuals: An ongoing challenge is the difficulty of reconciling the ultimate responsibility of the city council for city service quality versus the need to avoid interfering in the daily management of the organization. It is much better for the city council to communicate service level or quality concerns to the city manager versus performance judgments regarding individual staff members. It is particularly inappropriate for individual members or the council as a whole to try to direct the manager to hire, fire, or promote members of the city staff. Don't expect managers to take sides in councilmember disputes: Regardless of how they may personally feel, most city managers will avoid, at all costs, ""taking sides"" in disputes between councilmembers. While on occasion the manager might try to help reconcile councilmembers, don't expect the manager to take your side in a dispute with a fellow member. Even if they may agree with you, most managers will avoid taking part in public or private criticism of council- members unless professionally required to do so in extreme cases. Don't jump to conclusions regarding citizen/customer feedback: While it is your responsibility to be available to listen to citizen and customer feedback regarding the city organization, be careful not to jump to conclusions based on what you are told. Oftentimes an individual may sound completely sincere and credible while providing you an inaccurate account of their experience with the city organization. It is best to not jump to conclusions, one way or the other, until the manager is able to provide you a response to the concern. It is embarrassing to criticize staff for poor performance only to find out that the information you relied on was not accurate. At the same time, the manager needs to not be overly defensive regarding staff performance until he or she also has heard ""both sides of the story."" Don't expect the manager to exercise ""political leadership"": While managers are inherently leaders of their organizations and, to varying degrees, in their communities, their role is not to be political leaders. That is, it is not intended for the manager to be ""out front"" on community policy issues. Some- times city councils want managers to take leadership (advocate publicly) on controversial issues to avoid potential political consequences to themselves. While tempting, this is contrary to the intent of the council/manager form of government under which the elected officials are to take the lead on purely policy matters. 8 - 22",CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-16,28,"Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the Housing Element under the Continued Agenda Items section of the next Council agenda. Councilmember Knox White stated the next Council agenda will be multi-hour discussion. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the Housing Element matter can be continued to a special meeting. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can agree to take one more matter after the current discussion; Council may then discuss the continued, date specific matters after. Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the parking management plan [paragraph no 21- after the current matter. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. Vice Mayor Vella stated unhoused individuals continue to grow in number year after year; the winter months bring bad weather events; the project is economy of scale being phased in. Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the resolution] with direction to staff to change the contract language and have more than one community meeting. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has visited a site run by BACS; she has discussed BACS success with other mayors; the value of using an organization like BACS is the track record; there are many ways in which people become homeless; it would have been preferable to perform outreach ahead of time; Council stretches staff pretty thin; there are only so many hours in each day; the outreach portion is not a reason to delay the project; the housing crisis is present and a long time coming; working with BACS, a trusted provider, gives much confidence; however, good communication with neighbors is critical; having a team and advisory committee is needed for neighbors to feel that they are being heard; she fully expects neighbors to be open-minded and allow for further learning; communication is key; the City is late to start; she is confident in City staff and BACS personnel; she expects staff to be on top of the encampments in the area; she is pleased that the Day Center is open over-night and is making a difference; expressed support for staff working with those in encampments to reach out to Village of Love; the City of Riverside has an expansive homeless outreach program; Riverside has created a registry similar to a wedding or baby shower registry; the registry acts as a wish list of needed items in order to furnish units; community members can go online to purchase items; she does not support using ARPA funds to purchase a vehicle for the program; expressed support for contracting with a local taxi company for vouchers; stated that she would not like the purchase of a vehicle for the program to be included; expressed support for the program and for families to be part of a co-housing model. Councilmember Daysog stated that he hears concerns raised by neighbors of the area; he Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2021 17",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2019-03-13,28,"ITEM 3-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, March 13, 2019, 6:30 PM Jennifer Roloff: Yeah, and then we'll follow up about a statement. Okay. Leslie Morrison: I'll try to have a letter drafted by early next week. Jenn Barrett: Okay. Great. Arnold Brillinger: This reminds me that, as liaisons, when we're there at the meetings, we identify ourselves. And let them know that we're coming. That we are on the Board, or on the commission, and that the commission is interested in what's going on. Jennifer Roloff: Right. We can declare that we're there on behalf of. Okay. Thank you. 8. ADJOURNMENTS Jenn Barrett: Does anyone else have any further announcements? Okay. Item 8, as adjournment. Would anyone like to file a motion to adjourn? Leslie Morrison: I move. Jennifer Roloff: I second. Liz Acord: Okay. So thank you all for attending the meeting tonight on the Commission on Disability. 03/13/19 Page 28 of 28",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2019-03-13.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-10,28,"The Assistant Community Development Director stated the decision rests with the Council; the area is very small and will probably not have a building, but could be used as yard space; the concept was to have park areas along the Bay Trail. Mayor Spencer stated that her preference would be to keep the area useable for sailors. Councilmember Oddie stated if the change will get the entire Council to approve the project, he is supportive; if not, he would prefer to keep it as is. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant Community Development Director stated an assessment district is being set up for the project; the assessment district will fund a number of things, such as transit, sea level rise, and public infrastructure maintenance; the project is fiscally positive project for the City. Mayor Spencer inquired about removing the multi-family (MF) overlay from the commercial property once the homes are built. The Assistant Community Development Director responded adopting the Master Plan by ordinance determines the zoning for the site; stated adoption of the ordinance tonight does not allow homes in the commercial core area; the Council would have to adopt an ordinance to make any changes. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant Community Development Director stated three votes are required to remove the MF overlay, approve the Master Plan, or amend the Master Plan. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City can ask the developer to give money towards a bridge, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the City has Development Impact Fees (DIF); the developer is paying $2 million in transportation impact fees; the City has identified what will be funded using developer fees; a bridge is not proposed for funding because neighborhoods in both Oakland and Alameda have not agreed to have a bridge landing; until there is neighborhood agreement, a bridge will not be added to the list. Mayor Spencer inquired whether a 60 boat dry storage would be adequate. The Assistant Community Development Director responded Encinal Terminals will be coming to Council; stated said project will preserve 6.4 acres of Tidelands property; the lease expires in nine years; there are opportunities to contemplate dry boat storage areas at Encinal Terminals. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding 33 foot boats, the Assistant Community Development Director stated the dry boat storage area could be restriped for larger boats if there are not 60 small boats; demand can be accommodated. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City or another agency would have to condemn the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf OpenGovernmentCommission,2015-02-02,28,"private cause of action or offense to disciplinary action"" is really good language, except it has been negated in the first sentence; the last sentence says an employee can be disciplined and this first sentence says cannot. Commissioner Bonta stated the first sentence says an employee cannot be disciplined for expression of personal opinions when not materially misrepresenting their position as an employee of the City. The Assistant City Attorney stated this area of the law is not clear; a person has certain constitutional rights; the idea is that the ordinance should not create additional rights beyond that which is already recognized by law; in other words, the ordinance would not give a separate cause of action if someone expresses an opinion and is disciplined for it; the City does not want the fifth cause of action to be a violation of Section 2-92.6 of the Alameda Municipal Code. Commissioner Bonta suggested the Section be redrafted perhaps adding the language provides ""additional rights"" to the last clause. The Assistant City Attorney stated Section 14 is just housekeeping, clarifying language; Section 15 has been moved to the Section on posting of information; Section 16 has been moved into a previous section dealing with providing records; Section 17 would change the training from every year to every third year; the video is available to anybody elected, appointed or hired. Commissioner Bonta questioned whether Section 2-92.15 on requests by email stating an email has to be acknowledged by similar communication is limiting; stated there are probably instances when calling would be helpful. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Section can be made broader; continued that completes [the review] all of the changes which were discussed in October; staff will redraft the ones the Commissions suggested be worked on; if there is anything else the Commission feels needs some fine tuning or wholesale changes, please let staff know. Vice Chair Foreman inquired when it will be ready; stated there is no hurry but the Commission is going to have to have a special meeting. The Assistant City Attorney responded sometime in March or April. Vice Chair Foreman inquired whether the Commission should schedule the meeting. The City Clerk responded the bylaws set Mondays at 7:00 p.m. as the meeting date; stated March 2nd would require the packet to go out February 23rd, which is a little tight; for April 6th, the Commission would receive the packet on March 30th. The Assistant City Attorney stated April 6th is doable. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 28",OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2016-11-01,28,"friendly amendment to include the matter in the priority setting work session. Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the negative; stated direction should be given now. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the priority setting work session is a way to get away from so many Council referrals and deal with significant items. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the matter is time critical. Mayor Spencer seconded the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice votes: Councilmember Daysog, Vice Mayor Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1. (16-579) Consider Directing Staff to Review Enacting a Minimum Wage Increase in Alameda. (Mayor Spencer) Refer to the first referral on inclusionary housing [paragraph no. 16-573 for City Manager comments on all the referrals. Mayor Spencer moved approval of directing staff to review enacting a minimum wage increase in Alameda. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the minimum wage increase matter should be addressed at the priority setting work session. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned with small mom and pop shops; he would like said matter included in the discussion. Councilmember Oddie stated the matter should be addressed at the priority setting work session; there could be other models to look at from other cities. Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1. (16-580) Consider Updated Regulation and Potential Taxation of Commercial Cannabis Activities. (Councilmember Oddie) Refer to the first referral on Inclusionary Housing [paragraph no. 16-573 for City Manager comments on all the referrals. Alex Zalell, spoke before the Council referrals were heard. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf CityCouncil,2015-10-20,28,"Mayor Spencer nominated Jennifer Linton and Anto Aghapekian for appointment to the CDI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:28 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf CityCouncil,2018-06-05,28,"language, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the negative; stated the motion is to instruct staff to move forward with the sales tax measure. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff would return to Council about how the money would be apportioned without being too specific, to which the Public Works Director responded having the Council provide the general sense about including operational and capital needs would be helpful; he has concern about getting into special tax territory. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the presentation posed the question for the Council to answer; that she can support leaving it open. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the sales tax measure would not indicate what the tax would be used for at all. The Public Works Director responded the ballot would have language roughly similar to Exhibit 2. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the language reflects the output of a poll, to which the Acting Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer read the draft language; inquired whether there would be no end date and there would have to be a vote of the people to end the sales tax. The Public Works Director responded voters would have to vote to end the tax. Mayor Spencer noted the proposal is similar to the hospital tax with no termination date and would go on for ever and ever unless the voters end it. The City Manager stated the issue was polled. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she does not want to wordsmith the language because it was polled; additional conversations are needed to discuss priorities and uses; as currently written, the City can spend the funds for both operations and capital projects. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would be willing to include that there is no end date and would require a vote of the people to end the tax. Vice Mayor Vella stated said information will come out in the ballot arguments. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated going against the polling would be foolish. Mayor Spencer stated being transparent and honest with the public is critical; she will do her utmost to make sure the voters are aware there is no end date; further suggested adding ""in perpetuity."" Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf CityCouncil,2007-06-19,28,"the business plan include reviewing the location issue and that the plan be for a two-year cycle. Councilmember Matarrese clarified that the agreement details should include all the liabilities and necessary City requirements ; the business plan details should look at the horizon of the lifespan details of the current location as well as future location. Mr. Gunn stated the Museum Board is willing to look at any proposed location. Mayor Johnson stated the City will help, but the Museum needs to plan for the future. Mr. Gunn stated the Museum is not allowed to have the building [Carnegie Building]. Mayor Johnson inquired how much money the Museum has for a new site. Ms. Dileo responded over $100,000. Councilmember Matarrese stated there is a motion on the floor regarding going forward with the agreement with the Museum. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of staff reviewing the Public Arts Fund and its applicability to a fund that would total $50,000 and would be available through a grant process for Cultural Art activities in the City. Councilmember Gilmore stated a caveat to the motion would be to ensure that the grant process is on a two-year cycle; requested that staff review the Meyer House issue. Mayor Johnson stated Council would like to have the money available soon; she would hope to be in a position of assessing applications in three months. Councilmember deHaan seconded motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Gilmore stated staff has been given direction to review the Meyers House issue; she does not want the issue Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 17 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 19, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf CityCouncil,2006-10-17,28,"Mayor Johnson suggested that Mr. Schmidt discuss the matter with staff. (06-524) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, inquired why the Maitland Avenue and Harbor Bay Parkway corner parcel was moved; further inquired why the parcel was sold below market value and did not remain open green space. Mayor Johnson suggested that Ms. Lipow submit the questions to staff. The City Manager stated a staff report would be provided to Ms. Lipow also. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (06-525) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated money was allocated for a feasibility study and fire station acquisition during the last budget processi inquired whether the study been initiated. The City Manager stated said information would be provided to Council. (06-526) Councilmember Daysog requested an update on the Economic Development Strategic Plan survey. (06-527) Councilmember deHaan requested that the financial strategic planning tool be scheduled for discussion. ADJOURNMENT ( 06 - 528 ) Mayor Johnson announced that the November 7, 2006 Regular City Council Meeting would be adjourned to Tuesday, November 14, 2006 due to the November 7, 2006 General Municipal Election. There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting 11:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lana Stoker Acting City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 October 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf CityCouncil,2005-06-07,28,"ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 13 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf CityCouncil,2020-03-03,28,"funding pathways; staff has a limited amount of time to work on items; there are nice parks throughout Alameda; expressed concern about DePave Park not being given priority; expressed support for moving DePave Park up on the list and having staff provide next steps; noted former Councilmember Matarrese discussed DePave Park signage; stated there is a lot of potential and nothing is being done; West Alameda has Jean Sweeney Park and the Cross Alameda Trail, but DePave should not be forgotten; DePave Park could be a key part of the CARP. Councilmember Daysog stated the map presented is helpful; stated the map shows projects throughout Alameda; expressed support for staff's recommendation; stated that he would like to hear Councilmember's thoughts on prioritization; expressed support for DePave Park; stated this is a different type of park and can be an example that shows other cities how to plan for parks with regard to climate change. Councilmember Oddie stated Council has the chance to be the most climate friendly Council; discussed various climate actions; stated DePave Park can be state-of-the-art; the Recreation and Parks Commission has reviewed the item. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommended priorities, with direction to staff to hire a consultant to develop the Master Plan, ballpark the cost and return to Council by the end of July. Councilmember Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she respects the Recreation and Parks Commission; everything Council has discussed is true and correct; DePave Park is not part of the CARP; expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated the funding streams will be different and allow for moving forward on two tracks. Vice Mayor Knox White stated his comments were aligned with the staff report and the recommendation of the Recreation and Parks Commission; the motion got into advising staff to hire an engineer by the end of July; hiring an engineer has not been agendized; it is not clear where the funding for an engineer is coming from. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be restated. The City Clerk stated the motion is to move approval of accepting the staff recommended priorities, with direction to staff to hire a consultant that would return back by July. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired the funding source for the consultant; stated funds have not been budgeted. Councilmember Oddie responded that he will allow staff to make the determination; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 3, 2020 25",CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-19,28,"maintenance staff to create additional ""Road Closed to Through Traffic"" and additional ""Pedestrian Warning"" signs; 20 total installations are available and 14 are deployed; should staff move forward to phase two, staff will be able to deploy the rest by early next week; the intention is to place signage at primary intersections and additional intersections could be backfilled as the program progresses. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether a determination has been made during the pilot regarding safety being higher or lower with signage. The City Engineer responded early feedback stated there was insufficient signage to provide at intermediate cross streets; stated the project was deployed May 11th with additional barricades and signage to begin blocking off through traffic to certain streets; additional signage could be added however staff is limited by the ability to create signage and the duration of the program. Councilmember Vella expressed concern for issues on through streets; inquired whether there have been reports of near misses or other traffic safety issues since implementation. The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded that some survey responses have yielded reports of speeding and concerns; stated that she does not recall reports of near misses or reported collisions during the program. The City Clerk stated public comment will take Council past the 11:00 p.m. limit; noted Council may call back recused Councilmembers Daysog and Oddie for a vote to extend the meeting time past 11:00 p.m.; stated Councilmembers Daysog and Oddie may then re-recuse themselves and allow public comment to be heard and read into the record; outlined the remaining items on the agenda. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to get to the regular agenda items; inquired whether certain items should be heard or if Council should proceed to a time- specific. *** Special Meeting Alameda City Council 19 May 19, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-19.pdf CityCouncil,2008-01-15,28,"Industrial Park, what is not going on with the Marina Village commercial area, and what is going on with planning Alameda Point; job replacement was one of the mandates of the former Base closure; 14,000 civilian jobs were lost when the Navy closed. Commissioner deHaan stated 5,500 civilian jobs were lost. the military totaled approximately 11,000. Commissioner Matarrese stated that he would like to see a road map outlining what will be done; Alameda Point is important as a place to generate jobs as well as Marina Village and the Harbor Bay industrial area; there is a good handle on retail; an important objective is to have jobs that reduce the number of commuters leaving the Island; directed that the EDC flush out the how to of accomplishing what strategy one. Commissioner deHaan stated that Harbor Bay has had great successi a plateau has been reached on retail expressed kudos to the EDC . Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with direction to emphasize resources on implementing strategy one. Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion with the caveat that a plaza is well overdue in the Park Street area. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 3 January 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf CityCouncil,2018-10-16,28,"Vice Mayor Vella stated it does not matter if the applicant, the City or an outside consultant performs the notice; the action needs to be certified. Mayor Spencer stated that she understands there are two mailings: one early and another by the City as the applicant is going through the normal process; inquired if the first mailing would be pass/fail, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie stated the process seems redundant and he does not understand why it would be included in the RFP process. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to follow the same Planning Board process used for any land use determination. The Economic Development Manager stated the requirement could be dropped. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the neighbors need to be notified, but not twice. The Economic Development Manager stated neighbors would be noticed twice in the process; if the RFP process is kept standard, the neighbors would only be noticed during the Use Permit process. Mayor Spencer inquired if a motion is needed to remove the process, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the negative. The Economic Development Manager stated staff would incorporate the information from the ordinances being approved into the RFP; the last item is to issue a fee credit to those submitting on the same location; requested general approval from Council for the process. The Council unanimously agreed to the process. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (18-592) The Interim City Manager announced a proposed USS Hornet event was not approved after the Drake concert on October 26, 2018. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 16, 2018 25",CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-11-28,28,"ITEM 2-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 28, 2018, 6:30 PM the elections. But there is two items that the planning department is working on, and you've probably heard them that's one on Central that a member of the planning department came and did a presentation for us last year, and they have made some changes, some modifications to the original plan. And then the other one is on Clement Street. The plans are pretty well-developed. And I would like to, if the mission's agreeable, to invite one of the planning department officials to come and make presentation to us and both develop next meeting or the week, whenever they can come. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Okay. So, on my part, I went to a Chamber of Commerce meeting to talk about the ADA Initiative that I've done, been working on for getting businesses to be doing small steps to be more accessible under the ADA, and providing certificate, showing that they've made progress. So I left a number of flyers there, and we have a commission email address so that people can email and ask questions and send in photos of their before and after. And I also got in contact with three city staff members that I met and have asked them to pass along our flyer and our information as well. I'm still going to try to work on spreading the word a little bit more the best I can, so any ideas on how to do that, the better. And then I believe the I'm sorry, I don't know the exact name. They came to talk to us about the help for the elderly and some of the homeless. They're going to be talking in front of the city council next meeting, I believe. Laurie Kozisek: If you're speaking of the Alameda Collaborative, which is working on the McKay Wellness Center, yes, they spoke here, and then they spoke at the planning board, and then I think they're speaking at the council. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: And this is to remove the government name on the parcel right now. Laurie Kozisek: Yes, it's to remove the government overlay, which is a required step before they can sell the property. They already have it leased and they're already going ahead with their plans. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: If anyone's interested at the next council meeting. Does anyone have any other items? Arnold Brillinger: Jen, I had a question for your group. Are there certificates that you're handing out already? Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: I have not handed one out yet, but I do have a copy of it. It'll probably. It'll be half-sized, but it'll look like this. Arnold Brillinger: Okay, because there's I'm kind of slow going down Park Street, and so it gives me time to read all of the notices in the different windows. And somebody had a thing up there, it was a certificate that they were passed by a CASp person, but it didn't have any signatures. Because I was wondering who did this, and I didn't know where they got the certificate from. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Laurie, I think you would be able to answer that question since you're CASp certified. Laurie Kozisek: I would. 03/13/19 Page 28 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-11-28.pdf CityCouncil,2017-06-06,28,"Department and Information Technology Department."" Adopted; (17-368B CC) Amend the Pension Rate Stabilization Program and Other Post- Employment Benefits Funding Policy; and (17-368C CC) Direct the City Manager or Designee to Deposit $6,043,000 of Committed General Fund - Fund Balance Plus Amounts Authorized by Council in Current and Future Budgets into the Public Agencies Retirement Services (PARS) Post-Employment Benefits Trust to Use for Prefunding of Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Obligations. The City Manager gave a Power Point presentation. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella inquired whether some employee groups pay a portion of health care premiums, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella inquired whether any elected officials pay a portion of their health care premium, to which the City Manager responded in the negative. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired why the presentation shows $61,000 for the homeless assistance; the prior meeting indicated the amount is $120,000. The City Manager responded half of the funding comes from a grant that the Police Department is contributing to homeless assistance. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether the total will be the $120,000, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether any money is being set aside to purchase the Union Pacific remnant parcels. The Finance Director responded the purchase is not in the current budget. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired what the remnant parcels would be used for, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded part of Jean Sweeney Open Space Park is owned by Union Pacific; stated full buildout and access would require the purchase of said parcels. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether other money is available to purchase the land. The Recreation and Parks Director responded staff will be looking for grant money; stated there is no current money available to purchase said parcels. Mayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether staff can explain how the parcels will be purchased. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency 2 to the Community Improvement Commission June 6, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,28,"schedule. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the ambulance rates are noted as being established by contract with Alameda County Emergency Medical Services (EMS); the City of Alameda follows the County's adopted fee schedule; new rates are anticipated mid-July. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated many people have expressed concern for bills with large amounts after ambulance services have been called; she would like Council to look into the issue of ambulance fees; her preference is to postpone fee increases as much as possible; it is important to recognize that future hardships are unknown. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the ambulance rates are established by a contract with Alameda County EMS; inquired whether the contract is housed with Alameda Fire Department or City of Alameda and how the rate could be changed. The City Manager responded the ambulance fee could be kept at the County rate; stated staff can bring back a review of the rates in September; the Fire fees can then be brought back along with the ambulance fees in the fall with the other rates being approved. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer is looking for a reduction in ambulance fees. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the affirmative; stated she thinks it is interesting to have the victim billed for someone else calling an ambulance; expressed support for Council looking at the fees and figuring out a way to address the cost concerns. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the City Manager's recommendation to have staff take a closer look at the Fire fees and return to Council in September with a proposal. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the Master Fee Schedule, with the Fire fees to return to Council in September, including adoption of related resolution. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (21-455) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts via Property Tax Bills. The Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-20,28,"eligibility of being listed in the National Registry; doing nothing is not a good option; the issue is not really about SunCal in her mind; that she thinks of this as an EIR that should look at the bookends of a project; the EIR should look at doing nothing and doing the ultimate, which is the MOEA being considered this evening; that she thinks the EIR needs to analyze the full range of impacts, and then decide whether the City can afford to pay for the impacts and whether there is some threshold with respect to profit sharing; that she thinks the EIR is the most open, transparent, and fair process, which is what she is trying to underscore in terms of transparency and openness when it comes to communications with the community; she will be abstaining from the vote for said reasons. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that the transit plan is one of the most important things to her; everyone would suffer with an unsuccessful transit plan; that she is intrigued by the transit plan and she would like to see an EIR go forward and evaluate the transit plan and impacts; that she has problems with the financials; Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) wanted a 25% IRR; that she voted down the 25% IRR because 25% seemed high and was something that the City and developer should have gone back to the drawing board to flush out before going down the path to a DDA; the financial assurances and IRR give her pause. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated in addition to traffic, another concern is the Albuquerque bankruptcy and how the City would protect itself from becoming another Albuquerque; that he does not think the City can protect itself; questioned whether the City wants to do business with a land investor; that he would like the process to be open and get the best deal for Alameda; the Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners have a lot of experience and can do better. On the call for the question, the motion carried by a roll call vote: Councilmembers Gilmore: Aye; Matarrese: Aye; Tam: Abstain; Vice Mayor deHaan: Aye; and Mayor Johnson: Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstentions: 1. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:09 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 16 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-05,28,"business; urged Council to allow cannabis in Alameda, which will allow for jobs and tax money: Melody Montgomery, Alameda. Stated that she would like to ensure residents have access to medicine on the Island; she is concerned that the timeline will not streamline the process and will go beyond January 2018: Sharon Golden, Alameda Island Cannabis Community (AICC). Urged Council to allow the referral to go through; stated three benefits are: sales tax, employment for community members and reducing traffic: Rich Moskowitz, Alameda. Urged Council to allow the referral to go through; stated Alamedans should have safe access to cannabis on the Island: Amber Lopez, Alameda Safe Cannabis Access (ASCA). Urged Council to support the cannabis referral and entrepreneurs in Alameda: Abel Hebtegeorgis, Alameda. Urged Council to support residency requirements or preferences for cannabis business owners; stated allowing onsite consumption would discourage consumption on the streets: Mark Hersman, AICC. Stated Alameda's cannabis business goes to Oakland and Berkeley; staying on the Island will help the community: Tim Anderson, Alameda. Stated that he lost his aunt to cancer and cannabis helped her quality of life; there is cannabis access everywhere except Alameda; urged Council to not be behind San Leandro: Ryan Agabao, ASCA. Stated cannabis can have a medical benefit; he supports the referral: Andrew Huntoon, Alameda. Stated cannabis can help a range of illnesses; urged Council to lift the cannabis ban in Alameda: Juliet Lockwood, Alameda. Stated that she uses cannabis to heal her ailments; cannabis will give Alameda financial stability: Doretha McPhatter, AICC. Stated that she has not personally used cannabis in any form; her husband is a pancreatic cancer survivor and she attributes that to cannabis; urged Council to allow the referral to go through: Terri Golden, Alameda. Councilmember Oddie requested clarification on the timeline regarding when the item can return to Council The City Manager responded the item would return to Council September 5th Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf CityCouncil,2006-12-05,28,"Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether Council certification would approve the recommended mitigations throughout the SEIR. The Supervising Planner responded the findings resolution includes the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which outlines Catellus' commitments that the City would monitor; there is a commitment to evaluate widening Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether widening Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street would need to be done in two years. The Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated the 2025 impact is tied to what happens at Alameda Point. louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated it is important to ensure that there is no institutional habit to widen Webster Street and Ralph Appezzato Parkway. The Supervising Planner stated the Mitigation Monitoring Program states that Catellus has committed a fair share contribution; the City would continue to evaluate the matter many of the 2025 mitigations impacts are a result of adding Alameda Point on top of Alameda Landing. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Chinatown agreement would impact Alameda Landing, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the negative. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the Chinatown agreement would have no impact at this time. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the Chinatown agreement is exempt all together. Counci Lmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he hopes that the water and land shuttles are adequate. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated criteria needs to be established to determines whether or not the water and land shuttles should go forward at the end of the first year ; otherwise, alternatives would need to be reviewed. The Supervising Planner stated opportunities would be available to shift funds if no one is riding the water shuttle and the buses are Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 17 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-18,28,"SACIC and Catellus; Catellus has the right to purchase the land if certain agreements are met pursuant to the DDA. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the land is City property. The Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the land is owned by the SACIC, which is a public entity. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the land is owned by the public. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated Catellus owns a small piece of the property. Mayor Spencer inquired how much of the land Catellus owns. The Community Development Director responded 1.5 acres. Urged Council to support the project; stated Regional Measure 3 will bring desperately needed support for ferry service; he supports the proposed use: Bobby Winston, Bay Crossings. Stated that she supports the project, but has concerns about the amount of single family homes; Alameda needs more workforce housing: Angela Hockabout, Alameda Home Team. Mayor Spencer requested clarification on the percentage of single family homes. The Assistant Community Development Director responded 30% would be single family homes. Stated that she met with Catellus and staff regarding an alternate proposal to include senior housing; Alameda is in need of senior housing: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda Citizens Taskforce. Stated more discussion should occur regarding what is needed on the waterfront: Former Councilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda. Stated Alameda needs affordable housing: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates. Stated there is a critical need for housing; the project will create jobs: Patricia Young, Alameda Home Team. Stated the project is a solution and a game changer for the maritime industry; the project provides for housing and transportation on and off the Island: Michael McDonough, Chamber of Commerce. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-16,28,"data to know if it becomes an issue. Mayor Spencer inquired if the language will state that tenants have to leave on a certain date, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff's proposal as long as the end result is something that is enforceable. The Community Development Director responded that the document will have the strongest possible language that is legally permissible. Mayor Spencer inquired whether on the language regarding the housing provider's failure to provide, which is Section 6-58.180, shall render the housing provider liable to actual and punitive damages. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the first year of the program, the City needs to exercise discretion over enforcement and how quick penalties are to assessed; inquired about Section 6-58.17.C. Mayor Spencer responded the whole section is being stricken because a program fee has not been discussed. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded allowing a grace period the first year that the program goes into effect seems reasonable; read from the ordinance and listed several of the fine amounts. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Section 6-58.180 should read may, not shall. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded it should remain shall; stated the wording is standard; the first fine could be suspended in the first year if there are no other violations. Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff could do so. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded Council could direct staff to apply some discretion. Mayor Spencer inquired whether doing so could be done without changing the ordinance; stated the word ""therefor"" in Section 6-58.185 for should read just ""for""; she agrees with staff's recommendation with striking the word therefor and using discretion in the first year. Councilmember Oddie suggested enforcement take effect in six months. The Assistant City Attorney stated the reality is there will be a learning curve and staff is not out to cite people the first time there is a slight mishap. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-09-04,28,"COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (18-488) Councilmember Oddie expressed appreciation to the City Manager and Fire Chief for their advocacy in the Community Paramedicine Bill, which passed on Friday causing the City's pilot program to become something permanent. Mayor Spencer mentioned that she signed a letter of support. (18-489) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Historical Advisory Board, Planning Board, and Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB). Mayor Spencer nominated Cheryl Harawitz for appointment to the SSHRB. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:22 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 September 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-09-04.pdf CityCouncil,2009-02-07,28,"Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a formula could be applied that would use some of the gain to pay the incremental [OPEB] increase. The Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the maximum amount of capital would be obtained in the first five years in spite of the difficult economic situation; if the economy recovers in five year, there might be additional options. Mayor Johnson inquired what interest rates were used, to which the Interim Finance Director responded since the bond would be taxable, the variable coupon rate would have a range of 3.5 to 4% for the first five to six years and go to 7.2% 30 years from now numbers would be obtained if Council is comfortable with the concept. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding future OPEB payments, the Interim Finance Director listed the payment amounts. The Interim Finance Director continued her presentation. Councilmember Matarrese stated interest earned on the savings should be calculated. The Interim Finance Director continued her presentation. The City Attorney gave a brief explanation of the validation action. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the idea has been presented to the City Treasurer and FSC . The Interim Finance Director responded in the negative; stated that she talked to the City Treasurer about leveraging debt; a presentation has not been made to the FSC, but doing so would not be a problem. Councilmember Matarrese stated the FSC is considering a debt vehicle as one options. Mayor Johnson stated the City Treasurer had to leave, but could not comment since he had not seen the details; the matter should be discussed with the City Treasurer and he could bring it to the FSC. In response to Mayor Johnson's request, the Interim Finance Director provided a breakdown of the annual payment structure. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 28 February 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-07,28,"Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems; family housing is combined in separate ends of the development; there is need for unites for single adults and for couples; the Carnegie Library is not ideal for transitional housing; the ideal location for transitional housing would include a little outdoor space; the Carnegie Library might be better as a navigation center; expressed support for allocating money for transitional housing; stated the bottle parcel is a great location and is close to many services; every transitional housing unit must have its own bathroom as a matter of human dignity; adding a bathroom does not indicate the addition of a kitchenette; staff is in the process of working with people from the Marina Village Inn; the Marina Village Inn had not been doing well related to TOT revenue generation; the owner of the Marina Village Inn was willing to sign up for the Project Room Key program, which helped guarantee income that did not produce TOT; price and terms must be negotiated; expressed support for Option 1 and for UBI; stated the City might be able to utilize State grant money for UBI; outlined a program called Keep Oakland Housed and a federal funding program; stated calling 2-1-1 will provide information on how to apply for funding; Council may want to set aside money in a fund in order to help keep people from falling through the cracks. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a Board of Commissioners appointed by the Council has oversight over AHA; the AHA holds Board meetings; she is disheartened to hear complaints raised about the AHA's services; the public is welcome to attend AHA meetings and report to Council; she does not know the extenuating circumstances for specific cases; however, AHA serves many people; expressed support for AHA. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a Council vote is needed or whether direction to staff is sufficient, to which the Assistant City Manager responded direction to staff. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated majority of Council is in support of Option 1 with the enhancements of keeping Alameda housed and a community land trust. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is losing interest in the Marina Village Inn option for transitional housing; he is interested in looking at the bottle parcel option; he would like to look at providing water and sewer infrastructure support options for the Rebuilding the Existing Supportive Housing at Alameda Point (RESHAP). (21-553) Adoption of Resolution Approving a Revision to the Public Safety Retiree Medical Provision in the Executive Management Compensation Plan to Provide Up To Five Years of Service Credit for Time Served as a Chief, Assistant Chief and/or Deputy Chief in Another Agency. Not adopted. The Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification; inquired whether the benefit is for lifetime medical coverage. The Human Resources Director responded the coverage is a single party lifetime medical benefit; stated the employee will transition to a Medicare supplement plan at Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 20",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-05-09,28,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MUTES OF Wednesday May 9, 2018 6:30 p.m. amazed by it also. It's just that I had never seen a playground like that. Anto Aghapekian: And just it occurred to me that one of the things we could do is maybe do the same presentation adding more, and then get on the Rec and Parks agenda and show them what could be done to make it accessible. That would be a big help. Beth Kenny: Thank you, Commissioner Aghapekian. So I have not attended a SSHRB meeting. What I do is I get their agendas and see if there's anything that I think is going to be of interest, and then I'll just go to that part of the meeting in the video. It's pretty easy to get through it if you can just go to the right agenda item that you want. But what I did see is Doug Biggs from the Alameda Point Collaborative did an amazing presentation to SSHRB about the potential housing going in down by Crab Cove for seniors and homeless people coming out of hospital. And I would really love to see him give that presentation to us because I think this is something that we could. If we can help in any way, I think this commission would probably be interested in that, especially given our focus, our talking about focusing more on people with mental health disability. I think there's a lot of overlap in who would be receiving some housing in this area. Laurie Kozisek: I've left him a phone message asking him to contact us about that. Beth Kenny: Great. So that's my report for SSHRB. A lot going on at council right now, and a lot going on with the school board right now. I haven't actually watched the school board meetings, but they're talking about consolidating the high schools, and I know there's a lot of issues around that, and I would love to find out how it would affect students with disabilities. That's neither here nor there at this point. I just wanted to put that out for you, Commissioner Roloff, for stepping in there. Jennifer Roloff: Yes, thank you. Beth Kenny: I'm sure you're aware of the possibility that Encinal High School might be closed. Jennifer Roloff: Yes. And then it all turns into one. In fact, I think that Encinal PTA is having a meeting on that tonight, and I'm here. 5-C Presentation for April 2018 meeting (which arrived too late to post last month) Link to further study: https://haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/search/node/disability Beth Kenny: 5C is a link to the presentation that we had at the April 11th meeting. Thank you for all who helped put that together because I was having a family emergency and there was some last minute issues. So we didn't get that on the agenda, but we put it on here so that everybody can have it on the agenda for this time. And now we'll go to agenda item six, staff communications. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Laurie Kozisek: Thank you, Madam Chairman. The only comments I have are that for the 4th of July parade, we are going to have the Paratransit bus there, and I understand Arnold's going to be in it, and anyone else who wants to be in there and practice their queen wave, you're welcome to 05/30/18 Page 28 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-05-09.pdf CityCouncil,2007-01-02,28,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is a way to accelerate getting to the $425,000. Mr. Marshall responded the acceleration would need to be introduced as the project proceeds with the TDM Program; stated the right outcome would be to not accelerate to $425,000 in advance of the project build-out level; some portions of the project might not come online for some time; five years from now the CPI inflator is going to be a significant component; inquired whether Council was suggesting to increase the $425,000 by CPI and also add another 15%. Mayor Johnson responded Council is trying to put something into the deal to help accomplish the goals. The Supervising Planner stated the 15% augmentation is for a shorter period of time. Mr. Marshall stated $13 million would be contributed to the TDM Program over a thirty-year time span based upon the $425,000 per year uninflated cost. Councilmember deHaan stated the Harbor Bay development had a requirement to subsidize the ferry service at $100,000 the City has put a lot of money back into the project; hopefully, everything will be successful; the measuring device is the real concern; the day-one concept should not be lost. Councilmember Matarrese stated one alternative to accelerate getting to the $425,000 is to go with the CPI in year five if criteria are not met and the project is successful; it would make sense in year five because Alameda Point may be closer to being developed and becoming a contribution; the delta between year five and ten becomes more important than waiting X number of years to get to the $425,000. Councilmember deHaan stated transportation problems need to be mitigated. Mayor Johnson stated options should be listed regardless if an option is not preferred so that staff can bring back the ordinance. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated one suggested option was a 15% increase on where the budget stands at year five; the 15% is on a pro rata basis and is a slight variation of a straight up 15% and would work better for the City financially. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf CityCouncil,2005-08-16,28,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - - -AUGUST 16, 2005 - -7:35 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 2:40 a.m., August 17, 2005. ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. CONSENT CALENDAR Chair Johnson announced that the Resolution Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute a Fourth Amendment to the DDA [paragraph no. 05-042] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number . ] ( Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission (CIC) Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting, and the Special CIC Meeting of August 2, 2005. Approved. (*05-041) Recommendation to approve a Contract with Cooper Pugeda Management, Inc. ./The Allen Group, LLC for Construction Management Services for rehabilitation of the Historic Alameda Theater Project and proposed Civic Center Parking Garage for $1,114,436. Accepted. (05-042) Resolution No. 05-138, ""Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute a Fourth Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) by and Between the Community Improvement Commission and Catellus Limited Operating Partnership (Developer) Which Would Extend the Expiration Term by One Year From June 2007 to June 2008 in Order to Allow the Developer to Explore a Change from Commercial Office/Research and Development Land to a Mixed-Use Retail/Residential Land Use at the Former U.S. Navy Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Property. Adopted. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether adoption of the resolution Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 1 August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf CityCouncil,2005-07-19,28,"be made if desired. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that prior to today, the City Attorney's office had a budget that the Council approved by a line item; the City Attorney had utter discretion to spend the money any way she saw fit; the Council is trying to be more cognizant of its Charter responsibilities to provide oversight of spending said money having gone from over $500,000 of discretionary spending to the limit of $35,000 is a more than a prudent place to begin; the amount is not set in stone; nothing prevents the Council from putting a policy in place, seeing how it works and making changes if needed; unless there are more specific recommendations the policy is a good place to get started because it provides what the Council is trying to move towards. Councilmember deHaan stated that he has no problem with it; the Council still has the oversight; future changes could be made. Mayor Johnson inquired whether approval should be via a resolution. The City Attorney stated Council should adopt via motion, so it is a formal Council action in terms of direction. Mayor Johnson inquired whether any changes need to be made. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is a way to put the proposal in terms of the Charter responsibility, which is not City Council oversight of outside legal counsel expense, but is City Council rules of empowering the City Attorney to engage outside counsel. The City Attorney responded the motion could be that this is the rule of empowering the City Attorney under [Charter Section] 8-5. Mayor Johnson inquired whether this is a policy. The City Attorney responded it is a rule; it is a direction. Mayor Johnson inquired why the action could not be done by resolution. The City Attorney responded a resolution could be brought back. Mayor Johnson stated a resolution would be clearer; the issue of Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) also needs to be brought back to the Council; the Council needs to discuss approving counsel for AP&T and should consider delegating authority to the Public Utilities Board. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf CityCouncil,2019-05-07,28,"Interim City Attorney for his service. (19-287) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed a workshop related tax increment financing, the League of California Cities Legislative Day, the CASA Compact housing legislative working group; announced she and PUB members attended a meeting in Washington D.C. on the Northern California Power, Agency ; stated a meeting with the Veterans Association (VA) has been arranged for the proposed columbarium; further discussed meetings with Congress members and staff from House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA construction. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:13 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 7, 2019 27",CityCouncil/2019-05-07.pdf CityCouncil,2017-04-18,28,"Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 April 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-01-05,28,"The Community Development Director stated that she is going off the list regarding additional requirements and is going to skip the grounds for eviction and relocation assistance because maybe the monetary penalties and enforcement can be solved; inquired whether there is Council consensus to support monetary penalties and enforcement of the ordinance. Mayor Spencer and Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer stated said matter will be figured out when the ordinance comes back. The Community Development Director inquired whether or not there is support for a sunset provision. Mayor Spencer responded that she wants annual review. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated annual review is fine; that he is not sure there is a need for the ordinance to include a sunset clause. Mayor Spencer stated a sunset clause is not needed if there is annual review. Councilmember Oddie stated an annual review is fine, but he likes the idea of a sunset in case there are unintended consequences. Mayor Spencer concurred with Councilmember Oddie's suggestion. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft also concurred with Councilmember Oddie; stated new territory is being charted. Mayor Spencer stated three members are in support of annual review and a sunset clause. The Community Development Director stated the ordinance will include an annual review and sunset clause; staff is setting aside the recommendations regarding the fee, fee study and appropriation of funds; that she would move on to tackling eviction protections; Ordinance 1 allows for no cause evictions, but is structured to dis- incentivize doing so solely to increase rents because the maximum rent increase is capped for the new tenant and landlords are required to pay relocation benefits. Mayor Spencer stated Council has not included a cap and is requiring going to the RRAC instead. The Community Development Director stated Council could create a cap on the increase for the next tenant as a separate item. Mayor Spencer stated the landlord representative indicated there is already a Code section regarding the matter; Council could adopt said provision. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-15,28,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY- -JUNE 15, 2010- -5:00 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 5:15 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (10-271 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. (10-272 CC) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957); Title: City Attorney. (10-273 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation [paragraph no. 10-271], Council received a briefing from its Legal Counsel; no action was taken; regarding City Attorney, Council directed the City Attorney to bring back her goals and objectives by the second meeting in September, 2010; no action was taken; and regarding Anticipated Litigation [paragraph no. 10-273], Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel regarding a matter of potential litigation; no action was taken. *** Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 1:30 a.m. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (10-274 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. (10-275 CC/10-42 CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: 1590 and 1616 Fortmann Way; Negotiating Parties: Warmington Homes, City of Alameda and CIC; Under Negotiations: Price and terms. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf CityCouncil,2006-06-20,28,"stated the Administrative Analyst position would provide a lot of bang for the buck; the person would provide the ADA Transition Plan oversight, risk management services, and safety services. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated there is an advantage to having the position in the City Attorney's office because of internal audit functions; Option 3 provides advantages. Mayor/Chair Johnson suggested filling the Risk Management Analyst position and holding off on hiring another attorney to see how one City Attorney and two staff attorneys work; stated the City needs to provide legal services in the most efficient way possible. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City Attorney's office has been working with three attorneys over the last several months and the situation has been an issue. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether teaching safety should be handled through Human Resources; further inquired who is taking care of workers compensation. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded Risk Management handles workers compensation. louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the City Attorney/Legal Counsel's latitude is very limited. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated she hired an attorney to start July 5. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated looking into hiring an additional attorney might be appropriate. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of hiring another staff attorney. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese clarified that the motion is to have the staffing level of the City Attorney and three staff attorneys; the Risk Management Analyst position would be held in abeyance. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 14 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,28,"Full Name Zip code Email Signature Suk Change Lee 94501 prayer766@gmail.com his Kwei Wilson 94541 Rastono@gahoo.com KS DINA Williams 94602 diracbboun@ibubul GAB Patrick Leong 94605 psskang@aol.com by Gary Budd 94602 gargburt@compant GBR Chs Canad 94618 (C2007j44@hotmail.com water Edison Tuny 14501 edisontunp@gmail.com Gold Minh Trinh 94577 TeleveR@Hotmail.com physical David Ruly 94501 - Joseph teal 94501 Joegkoll@ado.org Bath Waranch 94501 bethus531@yahoo.com Bets Lani-Rau Green 94501 Joel Loz 7, Garcia 94580 Markle 94601 R loves 94602 Aky KEY 94605 gary Keganay Apply Peter tan MirGal Lan 94561 mijamach@yah 9950 , management Novman Xie 9450 I xienormani @ Screta 941010",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-21,28,"motion; his only potential change would be to consider whether Council wants the ordinance to go into effect immediately with enforcement not starting until 2023; the matter will have the same enforcement timeline; rather than people continuing to use gasoline powered leaf blowers for a year and a half, the City can begin the education portion and phase in enforcement. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for staying with the staff recommendation; stated that the education piece for the matter is important, including bilingual outreach; the City is impacting people's employment; there is hope that the change happens sooner rather than later. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (21-596) Recommendation to Review, Comment and Provide Direction on Preliminary Needs Assessment and Recommendations for Development of Smart City Master Plan. Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of continuing the item to the Continued Agenda Items section of the October 5, 2021 Council meeting. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (21-597) The City Manager made an announcement regarding the City's annual Job Fair at South Shore Center; stated the City is seeking Community Service Award nominations for community members who have made tremendous contributions over the past year in the City of Alameda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (21-598) Considering Having an Introduction and Update from the New Police Chief regarding Strategies to Address Crimes. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-599) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-600) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 2021 24",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf CityCouncil,2018-04-17,28,"for another mechanism to de-incentivize companies who profit on data collection: Brian Hofer, Oakland Privacy. Stated that if Alameda truly wants to be a Sanctuary City, it cannot have contracts with companies that target vulnerable communities who are concerned about their data; urged Council to pass the ordinance: Sameena Usman, Council on American-Islamic Relations. Stated the heart and people of Alameda, the inclusiveness and diversity is the real reason why her group supports the Sanctuary City; urged Council to oppose Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and approve the ordinance: Cheri Johansen, Alameda Progressives. Urged Council to support the ordinance: Mike Katz Lacabe, Oakland Privacy. Councilmember Oddie stated that he concurs with Vice Mayor Vella; approving an ordinance is a power Council has as individuals and as a community; there is no threat of federal funding cuts; he is fully prepared to support the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese stated the referral is a logical extension of what the Council did when it declared Alameda a Sanctuary City; staff should review the ordinance and bring it back to Council for an update at the workshop. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the ordinance cannot be adopted as a first reading tonight because it was not noticed. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not opposed to having staff review the ordinance and implications; she is mindful of the risks; Council balances a lot of different interests; she is impressed with the work Mr. Kofer has done; she supports staff reviewing the ordinance and coming back to Council. Mayor Spencer concurred with Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft; stated that she would like staff to look at the ramifications; there is a lot of technical language in the ordinance; she wants to find the real asks, the impact and the cost; it is important to hear from the Police Chief; Alameda should do its best to protect the safety of every person regardless of immigration status. Vice Mayor Vella stated as point of order, legal should review the ordinance, but come back in timely manner; review of existing contracts has to happen; the City still has joint solution license plate readers; the referral is trying to find out what contracts the City has. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is going to make a motion. Vice Mayor Vella responded she understands the concern regarding the amount of time it will take to review the proposed ordinance and go through the contracts; she would Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 April 17, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-17.pdf CityCouncil,2008-10-07,28,"Chair Johnson asked for a fundamental explanation of the ENA and DDA, for the benefit of the public. Ms. Potter explained that the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) is a predevelopment period with SunCal, with a term that runs through July 20, 2010. During this period, the City works in partnership with SunCal to get to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) stage. The DDA is a critical document negotiated during the ENA period and is an acquisition agreement - what you're paying for the land, what you'll be developing on the property, etc. If we don't have a negotiated DDA by July 20, 2010, then we go our separate ways. Member Gilmore asked for an explanation of the Navy still owning the property, and the clause regarding Navy negotiations. Ms. Potter stated that it is true that one of the riskiest issues about the Alameda Point property is that any developer we work with is not negotiating with the Property owner, which is the Navy. One of the key milestones being converted to a mandatory milestone under the 2nd amendment is the conveyance term sheet, our agreement with the Navy on the land purchase price, how the property will be conveyed to the ARRA, and ultimately to the developer. This term sheet is due July 31, 2009. If we don't come to an agreement with the Navy, SunCal is in default under the agreement of the ENA and we move to plan B. Chair Johnson asked whether the July 31, 2009 deadline is that a realistic time frame for the Navy. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, stated that the date was what the Navy indicated they're willing to entertain in terms of negotiating with us on a deal with SunCal, and that they're not moving further past July 2009. Chair Johnson asked if we are expecting any changes in the Navy' approach on the project after election. She hopes for a new outlook on base reuse from Federal Government and recommended we have flexibility in that milestone. Mr. Brandt explained that certainly, if we're making great progress, and if the Navy wants to extend beyond July 09, we' 11 come back and see if all parties want to go beyond but doesn't want to be caught in the position where there are no changes after the election, and we're unable to move forward. The Navy would not officially negotiate directly with developer, but will negotiate with ARRA. Member Gilmore asked staff to inform the public of the upcoming community meetings where SunCal will present their Development Concept to eight boards and commissions. Ms. Potter summarized the meeting schedule and discussed that public comments from each of these meetings will be compiled into one document and presented to the ARRA Board at its Nov. 5th regular meeting. ARRA will also Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 9 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-06-15,28,"Under discussion, the City Manager stated once an option is selected, the Police Chief would work with Dispatch to create a system how to move certain calls. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council gave direction on May 8th to begin immediate training for Dispatchers not to have mismatched responses as before; inquired whether the City Manager is waiting to do the training once an option is selected. The City Manager responded the agency needs to be selected to allow Dispatch to move the response. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is moving the response, but it is also training. *** (21-425) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of extending the meeting until 12:30 a.m.; stated that she would like to finish the item tonight. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion was previously made about when the meeting would end. On the call for the question, the motion, which required four affirmative votes, failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the item is important; Council should not rush to finish at 12:30 a.m.; she agrees with a previous speaker that some rules might need to be changed. The Police Chief outlined the process for calls coming into Dispatch. *** (21-426) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the matter being continued to a date certain, July 6, 2021; stated that she would commit to putting the item after the Wellness Center. The City Clerk stated the motion should include the 5:00 p.m. time and order does not need to be specified. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Note: Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft did not record a vote.] *** Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2021 19",CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-02,28,"property owners with 4 or fewer units. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated it would depend on the circumstance; he would like to see evictions within the scope of the RRAC so that people have recourse. Councilmember Daysog stated anyone who owns a fourplex runs the risk of doing a no cause eviction. The Community Development Director stated the number of no cause evictions would be capped annually; the idea is to not do a lot of no cause evictions as a way to get rid of tenants and not require a CIP. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a four or sixplex landlord could remove a person to move in a family member and still do another no cause eviction. The Community Development Director responded a family member is a no fault eviction not a no cause eviction; stated staff is requesting direction strictly on a no cause evictions not no fault. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there are examples of other cities that have this process. The Community Development Director stated this is new territory. Councilmember Oddie stated he is fine with the staff recommendation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she objects to having any exceptions; all tenants should be protected; she agrees with staff recommendation. Mayor Spencer stated that she supports staff recommendation. Councilmember Daysog inquired if any other city has incorporated this. The Community Development Director responded that in cities with rent stabilization no cause evictions are not allowed. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is an added protection. The Community Development Director requested clarification from Council on whether there should be an exemption for mom and pop landlords; stated if so, mom and pop landlords need to be defined. Mayor Spencer inquired if, legally, the City could require landlords to grant additional time to tenants for the buyout, based on how long the tenant has lived in the unit, unless the landlord and tenant agree. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2020-07-21,28,"The City Manager responded that he agrees; stated the language to require Greenway to meet all County and State COVID-19 requirements can be amended in the agreement and is appropriate. The Assistant Community Development Director stated leases and licenses generally have a clause requiring tenants comply with all local, State and Federal law. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated COVID-19 is new and the consequences for non- compliance can be significant and can implicate many; expressed support for the addition of a clause related to COVID-19. Councilmember Vella inquired whether the license agreement has card check neutrality. The City Manager responded in the negative; stated the provision may be added and Greenway is agreeable. The City Attorney inquired whether the request for card check neutrality would apply to the construction workers or on-site staff. Councilmember Vella responded the card check neutrality applies to on-site staff; stated there is a requirement for construction workers of a certain threshold falling under the Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA); questioned whether the language needs to be added to the agreement. The City Attorney responded the threshold for the PSA is quite high; stated the work may not meet the threshold; unless Council specifically directs staff to include the language in the license agreement, it is likely construction workers will not be covered. The City Manager stated Greenway is agreeable to card check neutrality for on-site staff; noted construction workers have not been discussed. Councilmember Vella expressed concern about the long-term use of the space; stated there are upcoming discussions about Council priorities; expressed support for Council decisions to be confined to a shorter period of time; stated that she hopes for a larger conversation in the future about long-term visions for the property; the event space may not stay at the location; expressed support for the short-term license agreement, adding card check neutrality language and adding COVID-19 specific language; stated this is an odd time to approve a license agreement for an event space; expressed concern about condoning the space being used in ways which are not in line with direction from the State or County; noted the stricter of the two regulations would apply; expressed support for the City being a responsible landlord. Councilmember Oddie stated compliance with Health Orders is needed; expressed concern about non-compliance; stated the language included in the agreement should be explicit. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 6 July 21, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-01,28,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (APFA) MEETING TUESDAY--JUNE 1, 2010- 7:02 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 10:56 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Board Members deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. Agenda Item (10-02) Resolution No. 10-19, ""Amending Resolution 92-1 Setting Regular Meeting Dates for Authority Meetings."" Adopted. The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services gave a brief presentation. Board Member deHaan moved adoption of the resolution. Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion with an amendment to add July 7 and September 8, 2010 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority dates to the list of regular meeting dates. On the call for the question, the vote carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda Public Financing Authority June 1, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf CityCouncil,2018-03-06,28,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- MARCH 6, 2018- -600 P.M. Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 5. Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (18-106) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section 54956.8); Property: Northwest Territories, Alameda Point; City Negotiator: Jill Keimach, City Manager and Jennifer Ott, Director of Base Reuse & Transportation Planning; Potential Tenant: East Bay Regional Park District; Issue Under Negotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms of Payment. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that direction was given to staff. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenpda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-03-06.pdf CityCouncil,2005-05-17,28,"steady funding stream; providing a large amount of money one time would not work; a plan should be established. Councilmember Daysog stated use of the General Fund reserve should be considered. Mayor Johnson and Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Daysog. Mayor Johnson stated the City is actually losing money and should be spending the money [ on infrastructure] if money is sitting in the General Fund reserve while a huge debt is being incurred; there needs to be a plan to ensure the City does not end up in the same situation in 10 years. Councilmember Daysog stated the General Fund reserve is at the current level because money was borrowed from infrastructure maintenance. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (05-249) - Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated City staff is handling the budget situation excellently; PSBA would be happy to identify resources to help the City purchase in Alameda; that he would enlist other business associations to partner with the City to ensure the City purchases as much as possible in Alameda; thanked Council for showing the courage and persistence to proceed with the Theatre project. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (05-250) Councilmember deHaan stated Council approved going forward with the purchase of a vehicle tonight [paragraph no. 05- 233] ; there is not a Ford dealership in Alameda, encouraged staff to consider Chevrolet. The Acting City Manager stated the Animal Control vehicle could be a Ford or equivalent. (05-251) Councilmember deHaan stated at one point, CalTrans was going to upgrade the lighting in the tube; requested a report on the matter. (05-252) Councilmember deHaan thanked staff for staying for the budget discussion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf CityCouncil,2008-06-17,28,"approximately $700,000; the Golf Course cash reserve is $1.1 million; the Golf Course would still be able to cover the shortfall for this year without the rebate. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the 2004-2005 ROI for the Golf Course and AP&T was to be for a short period of time. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the proposal is to rebate both the ROI and surcharge, to which the City Manager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much is the surcharge. The City Manager/Executive Director responded $171,960. stated $99,040 is the ROI revenue. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how long the surcharge has been in place, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded since 1991. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated intending to fund Fire Department overtime needs to be done with the realization of buying more time in hopes that revenue enhancement ideas pass in the fall; another plan needs to be in place if the revenues do not pass. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he would support additional time being gained on the back of Golf. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that everything is being put on a fast track; the top priority is public safety. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the $300,000 is not going to buy enough time past the fall; having the extra $271,000 would provide the comfort needed not to rotate a fire truck out of service. The City Manager/Executive Director stated $271,000 revenues would be taken from the Golf Course and added to the General Fund. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that three years ago he stated that the Golf Course was on a death spiral ; Alameda Point is placing the City in another situation of eroding the General Fund; lease revenues needs to be increased as much as Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 18 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf CityCouncil,2006-09-05,28,"Commissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge's were given ample time to make the best and strongest case possible and failed to do so; the CIC is opening a can of worms; other applicants could get letters from non-decision makers. encouraged Commissioners to reconsider and approve the staff recommendation Commissioner Gilmore stated the appeal would be denied if the Rutledge's do not provide documentation from a person in authority at the Social Security Administration. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Noes Commissioner Daysog - 1. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 10:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 9 September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,28,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2017-04-12,28,"ITEM 2-B COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES MEETING MINUTES OF Wednesday, April 12, 2017 6:30 p.m. Victoria, ""We've got a lot of drive-bys."" And she said, ""Oh well. It doesn't stop at the places on the schedule unless there's somebody waiting there."" I said, ""But no, I'm talking about we've got a lot of places on the schedule that there is no sign. No one would stand there in a million years, knowing or thinking that the bus is going to be there."" These are all things that they're going to be working on. There's a lot of things that need to be done and I hope that if you are, or I know lot of you are at work on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays but, if you have the chance to and you see the bus, go ahead and get on it. I also asked, ""why can't we go ahead and put the shuttle in the parade?' Arnold Brillinger: I was told, ""Well, there's not enough time."" I went in after our last meeting. I was there in February. The Friday after that Wednesday. So, it mystified me it takes the city that long to work. I'm realizing now that she meant that there's not enough time from when the new contract starts, because the new contract starts the 3rd of July. The Monday of that week. And to get it wrapped and all that kind of stuff. So, we'll probably see it in the next 4th of July parade. Not in this year. But the following year. And we're inviting all of you to come and ride on it. I'm thinking that that would be a good thing to have the Transportation Committee also to ride on it. Make a big deal of it. Beth Kenny: Yes, I'm so happy that you are doing this because we've really been offered a seat at the decision-making table as to where they going to contract the transportation through, and then also Commissioner Lewis has been doing something similar but with the taxi services that they going to contract with. To me it's wonderful. We're getting at the table where decisions are being made and thank you for doing that. Arnold Brillinger: Because, Beth, in response to that, Ikind of had the feeling that a lot of times, we are given presentations, and we're just asked to rubber stamp them. Now, we're saying that, ""Hey there are chances for people from this commission to be involved in those decisions before they get rubber-stamped or stamped."" So, that's a good deal. Beth Kenny: Yes. Thank you. Lisa Hall: So, one quick question then. So that means we won't be able to have the shuttle for this 4th of July parade is basically what they've said? Arnold Brillinger: Right. So if we're going to do a float or some other transportation. Lisa Hall: So, we need to figure out something else. Some other transportation. A truck or something else if we're going to do that. Arnold Brillinger: Yes. Beth Kenny: And that's where perhaps partnering with somebody like the Independent Living Center could work well for us. If we couldn't, maybe get a trolley or something with them, that would be a great way to get this done. Susan Deutsch: I agree. 8. ADJOURNMENT 05/24/17 Page 28 of 29",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2017-04-12.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-05,28,"informing qualifying seniors. Councilmember Vella stated many people have been contacted; noted Meals on Wheels or the Mastick Senior Center may not be serving everyone; inquired whether the City can work with the list of those unable to be served. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted there is no income limit for Meals on Wheels. The Community Development Director stated neither Meals on Wheels nor the program at Mastick Senior Center are limited by income restrictions; noted there is a 6.2% administrative fee that the City must pay for the Great Plates program; inquired whether or not the money paid toward the administrative fee could be augmented or used to grow the grant fund, and whether staff can provide an update to the Great Plates program outside of a Council Meeting. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the administrative fee is reimbursable through Housing and Urban Development (HUD); stated that she will reach out to Congresswoman Lee's office for a proper HUD point of contact; the money is put out initially and then reimbursed. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he supports giving the option for the 80 selected businesses to receive less money; the option may not be taken by many businesses, but could allow the assistance of an additional 2 to 5 businesses. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the proposal of using loans; outlined loaning Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) funds in the 1990s; stated the City can also look into working with HUD on waivers for income restrictions to loaning CDBG funds. Councilmember Oddie expressed support for allowing awarded businesses to take less of the grant to help additional businesses. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is wise to consider. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 7 May 05, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-05.pdf CityCouncil,2009-10-20,28,"inquired whether a provision could be made for City identified historical structures. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded a provision has been suggested; stated the problem is inconsistency with State law; State law only recognizes buildings on the State register; adding a historical provision could be challenged. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether variations could be allowed since the State invites local governments to develop ordinances. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded cities only have discretion to determine whether or not to count its own inclusionary housing requirements toward a developer's count of units. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the State's intent is to protect historic structures; inquired whether the City using its own historic interpretation would meet the intent of State law. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded that she would like to agree with said interpretation. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated staff has heard a number of comments; an updated draft should come back to Council. The Planning Services Manager stated staff would develop some type of process that requires an applicant to come before the City for initial approval for concessions, incentives, and waivers; staff will incorporate the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society suggestions in the revised ordinance. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated commercial areas do not have the same concerns; residential areas should be reviewed differently. The Planning Services Manager stated staff will develop a draft that compares caps in residential areas versus no caps in commercial areas; a developer could still request a waiver to no caps. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that she does no see anything in State law that permits a cap, but will speak to Mr. Buckley regarding the matter. Councilmember/Commissioner Tam requested clarification of reducing the inclusionary unit requirement from 25% to 15% in all Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-20,27,"Council figure out how to help seniors connect with the community. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of supporting the City Manager's recommendation to have staff return with a combination of Options 1 and 2 containing a housing focus, some revenue loss for flexibility and wireless hotspots with the potential for broadband support as discussed. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the public and mental health are folded in, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (21-505) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police to Update the Existing Alameda Police Department Policy Manual to be Current with Existing Best Practices and Statutory Requirements. The Police Chief gave a presentation. (21-506) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of giving the Police Chief an additional three minutes. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. The Police Chief completed the presentation. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of accepting the Police Chief's recommendation to update the policies. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated the changes all make sense; the matter can return to Council on the Consent Calendar in the future. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she can add the comments made by Councilmember Knox White as a friendly amendment to her motion. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is happy to let staff decide when matters can be placed on the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the matter returning on the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 20",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-24,27,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether businesses in different cities would have to obtain an Alameda license, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff has not put the requirement in place, but is currently working on doing so. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council is agreeable, to which Council responded in the affirmative. In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Economic Development Manager stated if a business with a State license and a brick and mortar location in another city delivers to Alameda, an Alameda business license would be required to do deliveries; expressed concern over enforcement. The Economic Development Manager stated staff would go out for a new RFP following the changes requested; inquired whether the same evaluation process should be used. Councilmember Oddie responded a business that has already submitted and failed due to the boundaries should not be required to do another RFP; stated the RFP could be for new businesses; making someone re-do the RFP is costly if just the boundary has changed and the same evaluation would be used. The Acting City Manager inquired what if the business wants to submit a new RFP, to which Councilmember Oddie responded if a business wants to submit a new one, it can. Mayor Spencer stated someone rejected could reapply. Vice Mayor Vella noted the business might want to apply to have adult use. The Acting City Attorney expressed concern over treating groups differently and the fee. In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding the fee, the Economic Development Manager stated the fee is $1,000. Vice Mayor Vella stated perhaps a discount can be offered if the application is for the same location since the work is done. The Economic Development Manager stated staff would return with a recommendation. Mayor Spencer stated it sounds like everyone is fine with said suggestion. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the tax should be addressed in the staff report when the matter returns, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the matter could be addressed in the staff report; stated staff also has cleanup amendments to the ordinance; the intention is to bring back both together, but the amount of changes might require the actions be separate. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf CityCouncil,2019-03-19,27,"missed. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the workforce changes resolutions; stated that he will abstain from the budget amendments due to the budget coming in negative and since he has only been present for two months as the two year budget; he is looking forward to the next two-year budget cycle. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she appreciates the conservative budget projections; even though revenues have been high, ten years ago some departments were cut in half; spending excess revenues should be avoided; public safety vacancies are not due to Council not funding the positions; recognized the City Clerk's office for passport services. Vice Mayor Knox White moved adoption of the resolutions. Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Daysog - 1. (19-176) Recommendation to Consider: (A) Introduction of Ordinance Repealing in Its Entirety Ordinance No. 3227 (Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Article XVI (Cannabis Businesses) of Chapter VI (Businesses, Occupations and Industry) to (1) Eliminate the Cap on Testing Laboratories, (2) Allow for Two Additional Cannabis Businesses to Operate as ""Dispensary/Delivery' (Delivery Required; Open to the Public) Within the Zoning Districts for Cannabis Retail, (3) Amend the Dispersion Requirement to Require No More Than Two Cannabis Retail Businesses to Operate on Either Side of Grand Street, (4) Create a Two-Tier Buffer Zone from Sensitive Uses for Cannabis Businesses, (5) Amend Certain Portions of the Regulatory Ordinance to Enable Cannabis Retail Businesses to Dispense Non- medicinal or ""Adult Use"" Cannabis, (6) Modify Requirements for Off-Island Delivery, and (7) Make Other Clarifying or Conforming Amendments Thereto; and (B) Introduction of Ordinance Repealing in Its Entirety Ordinance No. 3228 (Ordinance Amending Section 30-10 (Cannabis) to (1) Add Cannabis Retail Businesses as Conditionally Permitted Uses in the C-1, Neighborhood Business, and C-M, Commercial-Manufacturing Zoning Districts, (2) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Enable Cannabis Retail Businesses to Dispense Non-medicinal or ""Adult Use"" Cannabis, and (3) Amend Certain Portions of the Zoning Code to Remove the Dispersion Requirement); and Public Hearing to Consider: (A) Introduction of Ordinance: (1) Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Article XVI (Cannabis Businesses) of Chapter VI (Businesses, Occupations and Industry) to (a) Eliminate the Cap on Testing Laboratories, (b) Allow for Two Additional Cannabis Businesses to Operate as ""Dispensary/Delivery"" (Delivery Required, Open to the Public) within the Zoning Districts for Cannabis Retail, (c) Amend the Dispersion Requirement to Require No More Than Two Cannabis Retail Businesses to Operate on Either Side of Grand Street, (d) Create a Two-Tier Buffer Zone from Sensitive Uses for Cannabis Businesses, (e) Amend Certain Portions of the Regulatory Ordinance to Enable Cannabis Retail Businesses to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf GolfCommission,2018-02-15,27,"Corica Golf 2018 PREVIEW Annual Plan South Course Grand Opening - Summer 2018 Plans are in development to support the opening all 18-holes of South course in May/June time frame. This includes finalizing rates, preview events, staffing plans, press releases, course amenity package, marketing and promotional campaigns. Alameda Resident South Course Rates: A range of golf rates have been reviewed with Golf Commission and received unanimous support. South Course planned resident rates will be submitted for City approval in Feb. South Course Golf Carts: In conjunction with opening of the south course, a new golf fleet will be put in place. The new fleet will be a premium color golf cart with fold down windshields, sand bottles, GPS and onboard USB charging station. Best New Course/Top 100 Course Submissions: Coria Park South Course is being reviewed for Best New Course and Top Public Courses in America. 23",GolfCommission/2018-02-15.pdf CityCouncil,2019-07-16,27,"selected development team. The City Clerk responded it can be approved via one motion. Councilmember Oddie moved approval. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (19-447) Recommendation to Approve Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee Report; (19-447A) Resolution No. 15574, ""Declaring Intention to Initiate a Proceeding to Obtain Approval of the City's 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee, a Property-Related Fee Conforming to Article XIII D, Section 6 of the State Constitution."" Adopted; (19-447B) Resolution No. 15575, ""Ballot Procedures for the City's 2019 Water Quality and Flood Protection Fee."" Adopted; and (19-447C) Call for a Public Hearing Tentatively Scheduled for October 1, 2019. The Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding the last date to put something on the ballot, the Public Works Director stated the March 2020 ballot deadline is December. Councilmember Oddie stated the ballot will be mailed October 10th. expressed support for having a backup plan. The Public Works Director stated staff reports and resolutions would need to be completed earlier than November 25th when ballots are due. Councilmember Vella inquired whether the meeting can be classified as a special or regular meeting. The City Clerk responded the deadline to submit to the County is the beginning of December; stated a special meeting versus a regular meeting will provide more time. Councilmember Daysog stated if the item fails on November 25th, the people will have spoken; there is no need to rush. Councilmember Vella expressed concern over the concept of property owners being the only voice that is heard and saying the people have spoken. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated polling results were decent. The Public Works Director continued the Power Point presentation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf CityCouncil,2015-01-21,27,"better or become unintelligible; Roberts Rules of Order or some other system gets the motion on the table with a second so there can be discussion and something real can be modified, which is why Council should consider adhering to some specific points of Roberts Rules of Order, which has some practical parts; the Council has to walk the line between freedom of speech and practical policy applications; noted having a rules subcommittee would take less staff time. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City has procedures for making motions, which perhaps have not been followed; the City Attorney could provide a workshop or a write up; on the Planning Board, she had a guide on how to handle motions; consolidating the rules would be good; she would be happy to work on a rules subcommittee with Vice Mayor Matarrese; stated Council should consider the number of Council Referrals that can be included on an agenda; having seven to eight every time will cause meetings to be long; her preference would be all members of the Council use Council Referrals to get items on the agenda, which is more informative to the public and staff. Mayor Spencer stated her understanding is that in the past, the Mayor worked with the City Manager to submit items directly and did not submit referrals; stated that she wants to adjourn the meeting, which has gone on longer than she intended and the meeting last night ended at 1:30 a.m.; stated that she appreciates everyone's input. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a motion to adjourn is needed, to which Mayor Spencer responded in the negative. Councilmember Oddie noted the Council Communications section of the agenda still needs to be heard. In response to a public speaker, the Assistant City Manager clarified that staff does not put controversial items at the end of the agenda to limit the ability of the public to speak. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (15-079) Councilmember Oddie reported that he attended the League of California Cities new Mayor and Councilmember training. (15-080) Councilmember Daysog reported that he attended the League Housing Community Development Policy Committee meeting last Thursday. (15-081) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft reported that she recently attended the signing of a memorandum between Bay, Ship and Yacht and the College of Alameda for a joint training program; applauded Bay, Ship and Yacht for providing job training and employment opportunities. ADJOURNMENT Special Meeting Alameda City Council 27 January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf CityCouncil,2021-10-19,27,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the resolution begins by stating for Council to authorize issuance of one or more series of pension obligation bonds; the resolution contradicts the current discussion; the resolution has more legal significance then being suggested. Councilmember Knox White requested clarification be provided by the City Attorney. The City Attorney stated Section 1 of the resolution exists, so that staff can validate and bring a Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 19, 2021 26",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf CityCouncil,2021-03-16,27,"they found opportunities to support the training, Council is supportive; a specific number or requirements are not being approved; he is trying to find a way to honor the fact that Council all seem to think it is a good project; if the Communications and Legislative Affairs Manager is planning something and Know Your Rights fits in, she should know the Council thinks it is a good project. Councilmember Daysog second the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera spencer requested the motion be repeated. The City Clerk stated the motion is approval of the second recommendations from the Steering Committee report items: 1) 88 officers, 3) Code of Conduct, and 4) Crime Analyst position, with the addition of the Know Your Rights. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft added the motion includes how many Officers have been trained in the DA training. The City Manager inquired whether staff could have the ability to keep the Social Media active until next Monday to allow for a transition period. Councilmember Knox White responded while Council already approved that, it does not bother him. On the call for the question, the motion which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like the City Attorney's office involved with criminalization of poverty regarding prosecutorial matters, not on the enforcement side; he would like a staff report explaining whether it is logistically possible for the City Attorney's office to pursue the idea and how it might look; he understands if it is not possible since State or County Courts deal with the issue. The City Attorney inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is referring to non-moving vehicle violations, to which Councilmember Daysog responded that he would prefer to relate it to things intimately related to poverty, but he leaves it to the City Attorney; non- moving vehicle violations seem to be related. The City Attorney stated in an advisory capacity, the City Attorney's office can work with APD colleagues to address best ways not to have cases brought into the criminal justice system; similar to the County prosecutorial process; it is ethically problematic for the Council to give the City Prosecutor specific direction on whether or not to prosecute cases because Prosecutors represent the people, not the City; in an advisory role, the City Attorney could work with APD to address perhaps a class of cases that do not need tickets issued and maybe warnings could be given or some other process. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2017-11-07,27,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's request; stated the language requires the matter to return to Council. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the concept does not belong in the ordinance. Mayor Spencer inquired whether three Councilmembers support keeping the language in the ordinance. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the intent is to say if you promise something that you deliver. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated if Council would like to strike the language, it can be done; staff feels comfortable with including the language in the ordinance. Mayor Spencer inquired whether three Councilmembers would like to leave the language in the ordinance, to which Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer requested that language be added to indicate that the onsite community relations staff and the onsite operations manager can be the same person. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the decision to hire multiple people for the position can be left up to the business. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to make it clear that there is not a requirement to hire two different people. The Community Development Director stated the language will read the onsite community relations staff can perform the duties of the onsite operations manager. (17-670) Council discussed whether not to hear the pension item [paragraph no. 17- 673]. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the pension item Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1. *** The Community Development Director stated regarding the hours of operation, staff's intent between 9 p.m. versus 10 p.m. is to not conduct business after 10 p.m. The City Attorney stated the language works because it says for all permitted facilities; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-05-04,27,"(21-312) The City Manager announced updates related to exploring and defining mental health resources within homeless services, gas leaf blowers, a vaccine clinic May 6th and the Central Avenue Veterans Wall project. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (21-313) Zac Bowling, Alameda, discussed AB 339; stated that he is a fan of the bill; urged Council adopt the current proposal for AB 339; stated the bill continues the ability for public comment and civic engagement via internet and telephone remotely; the bill is voluntary for cities to adopt; having access during COVID-19 has dramatically allowed participation and engagement for members of the community; discussed AB 1322. (21-314) Tripti Jain discussed a rental property she owns in Fremont. COUNCIL REFERRALS (21-315) Consider Scheduling a Performance Evaluation for the City Manager as Soon as Possible. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-316) Consider Addressing the Surplus Lands Act, including Lobbying Efforts and Assembly Bill 1486. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (21-317) Councilmember Knox White discussed Alameda County (AC) Transit transit talk and an AC Transit Interagency Liaison Committee (ILC) meetings; stated the transit picture is less grim for those impacted; AC Transit has a bare bones service solution being rolled out for the summer; announced a new bus route timed with the new ferry terminal at Alameda Point; stated there will be a direct connection for the West End that will start at the East End; discussed AC Transit's budget and new services starting back up over the coming year. (21-318) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed a meeting from the Airport Noise Forum; discussed the website: flyquietoak.com; stated people should report being affected by airplane noise and traffic; the organization is working with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to get relief. (21-319) Councilmember Daysog discussed the AC Transit ILC meeting; stated the Alameda Unified School District will be sending a member to regularly attend the meetings. (21-320) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed a meeting webinar preparing for receiving recovery funding; stated the guidelines from the Treasury Department will come out on May 11th; discussed a Mayor's Town Hall on policing which was student-led by the Youth Activists of Alameda; announced an upcoming Town Hall on bystander intervention training. (21-321) Vice Mayor Vella stated the upcoming bystander training focuses on not responding to the person that is performing hateful acts and instead focuses on the target or victim; announced a Lead Abatement Board Healthy Homes Department meeting, which will Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 May 4, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf CityCouncil,2020-06-02,27,"Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, with the following amendment that A [cleanup] and B [City prosecutor] be combined, and D [Section 7-3] and E [Article 26] be stand alone. Councilmember Daysog accepted the amendment to the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Vella requested clarification of each item being combined and the letters represented. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be restated. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of combining A and B as one set of ballot measures, and D and E will standalone. Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated that he supports combining all as long as E is standalone. Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for the proposal. Councilmember Vella stated all should be separate if not combined. Councilmember Oddie expressed support for having two initiatives; stated the items are cleanup. Vice Mayor Knox White stated A, B and D are all cleanup language; E should not be connected with anything else and should be standalone. Councilmember Daysog expressed support. Councilmember Vella expressed support. Councilmember Daysog made a substitute motion to move approval of items A, B and D being combined and E being separate. Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (20-380) Resolution No. 15658, ""Approving a City Council Handbook and Code of Conduct."" Adopted. The City Manager gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Oddie stated the City Clerk has traditionally been the Parliamentarian. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf CityCouncil,2022-02-01,27,"workshop during a regular Council meeting; it is untrue that Council must discuss priorities at a workshop retreat; Council can start by reviewing prior Council priorities and set the matter as a regular agenda item; all Councilmembers are available the first and third Tuesday of the month. Vice Mayor Vella stated that Council discusses priorities at workshops in order to allow for a focus and deliberation on only the priorities; workshops have previously lasted several hours; expressed concern about having full agendas; stated taking away from the business of the City or ensuring the discussion does not occur at 11:00 p.m. is the reason to have a separate workshop; she will not be supporting the motion. Councilmember Daysog stated that he found the referral reasonable; the idea of having a workshop during a Council meeting starting at 5:00 p.m. is reasonable; Council has held workshops in areas which were not accessible or generally open to the public. Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the motion be re-stated. The City Clerk stated the motion is to approve the referral to have the priority setting workshop held at a regular City Council meeting. On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. (22-093) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (22-094) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (22-095) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the Vaccine Task Force's booster clinic at Mastic Senior Center. (22-096) Councilmember Daysog discussed the City Council/School Board Subcommittee meeting; stated the School District will be placing a bond measure on the June ballot. (22-097) Councilmember Knox White discussed the AC Transit Interagency Liaison Committee meeting; stated AC Transit Line 78 to the Seaplane Lagoon for the 1 year pilot program is coming to the end; the pilot program cannot be extended; public hearings will be held. Councilmember Daysog noted AC Transit is also working with the City on a bus pass for low income senior citizens and those with disabilities. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 1, 2022 27",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf CityCouncil,2022-05-03,27,"Under discussion, the City Attorney stated the motion to move the matter must be time- specific. The City Clerk stated the matter can be continued to 5:59 p.m. on May 10th. Councilmember Knox White and Vice Mayor Vella accepted the amendment to the motion. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not support the motion; the matter should return on a Regular Council Agenda. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. Stated preserve the historic look and feel of Webster Street is important; increasing the units in the area will dramatically change the neighborhood look and feel; discussed an alternate WABA proposal; urged a more refined proposal be submitted: Lori Bilella, Alameda. Stated AAPS recommends the City remove the proposed blanket upzoning of R-2 through R-6 from the draft HE; the proposed upzoning is unnecessary and overkill; the draft HE includes a 20% buffer; discussed ADUs; stated targeted upzoning can happen in the future: Birgitt Evans, AAPS. Stated that he is paying attention to neighboring cities since RHNA is regional; it is important to show leadership across the East Bay; noted Berkeley is considering a 30% buffer to ensure its goal is met; the defense of Article 26 does not go over well; the region is trying to solve a housing problem; it is essential to meet RHNA numbers: Nico Nagle, Oakland. Stated that she objects to the proposed upzoning of residential neighborhoods throughout Alameda; upzoning would eliminate Article 26 that was supported by a large majority of voters; Council should support the voters and not indirectly void Article 26 in supporting upzoning; expressed concern about the HE buffer and setbacks: Reyla Graber, Alameda. Showed a slide; expressed support for staff exploring alternate height strategies; discussed density bonuses and ADUs; expressed concern about the proposed density of north Park Street: Christopher Buckley, AAPS. Stated adding more units might be a less expensive option versus building from the ground up; questioned why the draft HE removed adding more units: Karen Miller, Alameda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 3, 2022 23",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-27,27,"The Interim City Manager inquired whether the issue actually went on the ballot or was just discussed. Mayor Johnson, Councilmember Tam, and Councilmember Gilmore stated the issue went on the ballot. Mayor Johnson stated all measures passed and perhaps the Charter has not reflected the change yet. Speakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; Ann Spanier, League of Women Voters; and Domenick Weaver, IAFF. The City Clerk stated Section 22-8 was modified; the following language was struck: ""to increase such hours for the necessary accommodations of the public""; the section after the 2008 election reads: ""All public offices except for otherwise provided by law shall be open for business every day, except holidays from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. subject to modification by Council"". Councilmember Gilmore stated the Subcommittee thought subject to modification by Council would mean Council could pass an ordinance to modify hours. The Interim City Manager stated her interpretation is different; inquired whether the language allows Council to amend hours by ordinance or resolution. The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated that she recalls that the section was modified in 2008 because the way the Charter read, Council could only increase hours, not decrease hours; what is being suggested now is to repeal the section entirely so that Council would have more flexibility and hours could be set by resolution, ordinance, or policy; making a change now would require a Charter amendment. In response to Councilmember Tam's regarding repealing the section in 2008, the City Attorney stated the matter was not discussed. Mayor Johnson requested the City Clerk to read the section again. The City Clerk read the section again. Mayor Johnson stated that it sounds as though Council can modify the schedule, including Saturdays and Sundays. Councilmember Gilmore stated the Subcommittee's intent was to enable Council to change hours; the Subcommittee had discussions regarding departments having different operating hours and did not want to have a Charter amendment every time Council wanted to change a department's hours; despite what the Charter said prior to the amendment, some departments did not have the correct hours. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 27 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf CityCouncil,2010-04-20,27,"without a vote of the people under the new revision of the law; inquired whether Mr. Faye would dispute that the State density bonus law applied in Alameda. Mr. Faye responded the issue is the implementation of the density bonus provisions; stated given the prohibitions on certain kinds of attached dwellings because of Measure A, Charter Article 26, the ability to modify the City Charter to implement the law was not enacted by the City until the middle of December; the election would have been moot had that been enacted sooner and had the State law provisions that caused the City to enact the modification to the Code in the middle of December. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City has a fundamental disagreement with Mr. Faye; the City has a different understanding of the applicability of the State's density bonus law; Mr. Faye believes that the State density bonus law did not apply in Alameda until December. Mr. Faye stated that is not what he is saying; Measure A prevents certain kinds of attached dwelling units; in order to modify the City Charter, Council enacted an ordinance in the middle of December and implemented State law that permits the City Charter to be amended by Council, not requiring a vote of the people; the election would have been irrelevant had the particular provision of the Code been changed before the project proponents submitted signatures. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is any difference in how State law would have been applied before December; requested an explanation from the City Attorney/Legal Counsel; also requested an explanation of the application of the State density bonus law. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated when the Council discussed the density bonus in December, the City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that State law nullified Measure A for the City and State law trumps the Charter. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that she said State law pre-empts the Charter; density bonus is a matter of Statewide concern; it does not mean that Measure A is set aside; in order to implement bonus market rate units, someone could need and request a waiver of the multi-family restriction; the same was true before December and has been true for twenty years. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the ordinance was tailored to Alameda; discussions involved exempting the 15% requirement if there is inclusionary housing; inquired whether said issue was unique to Alameda. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the negative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether said issue is in Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 7 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf CityCouncil,2007-12-04,27,"The Finance Director responded the auditors pointed out that it was a deficit this year but the issue was already determined. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the Power Point presentation should be posted to the website and Council should receive a copyi the national economic environment affects California and will affect the City; thanked the Finance Director for doing a good job on the presentation. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam echoed Commissioner Matarrese's appreciation for the presentation; inquired how the City deals with replenishing or drawing down on the reserves from the 20% to 25% range. The Finance Director responded the draw down was purposeful and well thought out by Council in terms of trying to meet unmet infrastructure needs. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether reserves are replenished also. The Finance Director responded reserves are replenished only by having revenues exceed expenditures; stated the expenditure budget is $85.7 million; typically, not all money is spent and will go back into the fund balance; an absolute commitment cannot be made at this time. Councilmember/BoardMember/Commissioner deHaan stated there was a draw down on the reserves because of needed infrastructure; the draw down was supposed to be 25% to 23% and is now 21%; 18% is left and will leave approximately $12 million; a lot of the $12 million is obligated. The Finance Director stated 18% leaves approximately $15.5 million the $400,000 reserve designated for Fire Station 3 replacement is excluded; approximately $6 million is loaned to other funds. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the $6 million could be called back. The Finance Director responded the $6 million could be called back, but the disaster would be pushed off to another area. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what loans are in the $6 million. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 13 and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf CityCouncil,2011-02-15,27,"The Public Works Director responded $282,000 is for water, and $125,000 for is for JPA; stated the 18-month payment plan includes payments next year. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Bonta stated burning through the $2.1 million transfer tax in a short period of time is difficult; alternatives should be explored for the discretionary items; putting some of the money aside would be nice. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated every good budget has contingencies; inquired why some items could not be taken care of with contingencies. The Controller responded the City Manager contingency amount for Fiscal Year 2010- 2011 is approximately $200,000; stated half has been used this year. The Acting City Manager/Executive Director stated the contingency would be used for the City Manager recruitment and employee training; some contingencies exist because departments have been good at saving money; a lot of departments will come in under budget. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how things would have been paid without the money from the Alameda Towne Centre sale, to which the Controller responded the General Fund reserve would have had to be drawn down. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the established threshold would be broken; inquired whether there would be enough revenue generation next year. The Acting City Manager/Executive Director responded revenues will not have a spectacular growth; stated the real problem will be on the expenditure side; there will be a $1.3 million hit for PERS, payments for miscellaneous employees and health care costs will go up. Councilmember Tam moved approval of accepting the Quarterly Financial Report. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion. The Controller inquired whether the motion includes approval of the budget adjustments. Councilmembers Tam and Johnson agreed to amend the motion to include budget adjustments. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 12 Community Improvement Commission February 15, 2001",CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf CityCouncil,2009-11-17,27,"ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Joint Meeting at 12:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf CityCouncil,2010-03-16,27,"The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the issue tonight is whether or not to agree to a 60-day tolling period. Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she is trying to understand the reason for the tolling period request and whether there is an ability on the part of the City's partner to cure the deemed default her understanding of Section 3.2.5.1 is that the developer shall use best efforts to submit all required supplemental information sufficient for the entitlement application to promptly be deemed complete by Alameda; inquired whether the City deemed the application incomplete. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the Notice of Default sets forth the analysis and reasoning; stated SunCal can be asked whether they feel capable of curing by the deadline; the City's position is that SunCal is clearly capable of curing; the Notice of Default is very specific about the problem with the OEA and what needs to be done to be in compliant with existing law. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the ENA states that the developer may include: General Plan amendments, Zoning amendments to the MX Mixed Use zoning, and other entitlements and approvals the developer may request for the project site; inquired whether said action has occurred. The Planning Services Manager responded the OEA includes a submittal for a MX amendment and specific plan for the site; stated neither submittal can be processed under the current City Charter and would require another initiative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the submittals cannot be processed because of non-compliance with the Charter provisions or because the submittals do not include a request to deal with some General Plan and Zoning amendments or other entitlements including the Density Bonus Ordinance passed in December. The Planning Services Manager responded General Plan, Rezoning, and Master Plan amendments were included; stated the problem is that the submittals cannot be processed because of inconsistency with the City Charter. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that ENA does not allow for a second initiative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the typical process that the Community Development Department goes through when reviewing and considering non Measure A Compliant submittals; referenced the Francis Collins' project. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 2 Community Improvement Commission March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2008-06-03,27,"two-year extension. The Finance Director responded the payments for total debt services for all three funds is about $573,000 each year. Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated the deferred payments not being made over the first two years are slightly under a million dollars. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the added interest and cost of restructuring is an additional $594,000. The City Treasurer stated bills should be paid when due. The City Auditor stated money needs to be spent to refinance; he does not see the benefit in pushing obligations into the future; tough decisions need to be made now. louncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated deferred payments over the first two years are approximately $1 million; $594,000 is the delta between what would need to be spent if nothing is done and what would need to be spent for refinancing; inquired whether the savings would be the difference between $1 million and $594,000. The Finance Director responded there is no savings because the $1 million is part of the calculation of the $594,000. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the non-payment years cannot be counted as savings inquired whether payments would be higher in the third year because of the restructuring. The Finance Director responded the payments go up to $567,00 in year three; in year three payments would be $610,000 as compared to $567,000; payments start to decline in 2017 because the 1996 Police Building debt would be paid in 2015 the existing debt service would decline to $369,000; the new debt service would stay in the $570,000 range. The City Treasurer stated the situation is whether to borrow money over the next two years to balance the budget and pay it back over the next twenty years. louncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore moved approval of tabling the item pending budget discussions. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 13 Financing Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf CityCouncil,2014-07-15,27,"has left us in a strange place where we've stopped contacting the management company for anything other than major repairs. Our policy has been to keep as far below the radar as we can. We can't afford to live here if our rent increases again next year. My Husband is a temp making only $14.50/hr at nearby XXX, and I am a contractor, read, not full time employee, at a tech company in Silicon Valley. Of course no significant upgrades or work has been done to our house, either. I'm concerned it's going to continue to go up as more affluent people continue to move to the island. I know I am very lucky to have a landlord interested in long term retention of tenants. My commitment to being here for years was a major factor in them accepting my application. I received an initial increase from $900 to $1, 150. After attending a meeting with Alameda Housing Authority, the rent was reduced to $990. Am I to expect a minimum of 10 percent each year. I moved to a different apartment complex and a smaller apartment after less than a year at my previous location, because I knew the rent was going to increase from 2095 for a 3 bedroom, at least $150 and the landlord would not let me move into a smaller apartment, even when my one year lease was up. I have no concerns - the rent is very reasonable. I moved in years ago. Now, since Alameda is the place to move, my rent has gone up just so the manager can pocket profit to keep up at the market rate. Concerned that the owner will recognize how much they could charge (3000) VS. what they do charge me! Live month by month waiting for the other shoe to drop I've been lucky to have a landlord who wants us to stay so hasn't raised the rent but relocation would be impossible. Too expensive now! No moderate income housing; no rent control Unfortunately, continuous increases are the standard, not the exception. This is regardless of the actual work being done and the market. While the percentage may fluctuate, the increase has become all too ""normal."" I have lived in two units in this complex and even in probably one of the least favorable units (in terms of location - bottom floor, between units, no view, facing a wall and a studio) increases were still standard. You are all but forced into a one-year lease if you do not have something ready for move- in because the shorter term lease options have such a steeper increase. And with the 1-year, they still try to shave days so you don't even get that rate for a full year. We moved in December and within just 6 months the rents have skyrocketed! Our rental company said that if we were to walk in off the street today they would charge almost $800 more o month! This is ridiculous! They have told us to expect at least a 5%-10% increase in rent when our lease is up (perhaps more depending on the market). Our last building was bought and the new owner had everyone leave. The new owner redid the floors and painted, over doubling the rent. My concern is that I am being pushed out of my city of birth. I have worked at the same non-profit institution for 30 years, have a Bachelor's degree. My salary is far under the median. Soon, rents will be at over a third of my income so no one will rent to me. I am concerned Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015 9 www.RenewedHopeHousing.or RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com I Laura Thomas (510)522-8901",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-07-11,27,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday July 11, 2018 6:30 p.m. number is 510-882-3404 and they're meeting again on Tuesday night. And I just wanted to share that. Thank you. Chair Beth Kenny: Great. Thank you, Commissioner Linton. So I think I misspoke a little bit about the Kiwanis Club. What it is, is they're starting a service club within the Kiwanis Club that is they're interested in getting people with disabilities to come join Kiwanis. So I think we should be in touch with them and reaching out. And I would love to be a part of that. It's called the Aktion Club and I encourage anyone who's interested to please check it out. Anto Aghapekian: I know the person. Chair Beth Kenny: That sounds great. So on the housing stuff that you were discussing, last night at City Council, they approved a master plan for the Marina Shores Project, which is, I believe, part of the Clement Street Corridor that you're talking about and the project would include 760 new residential developments. So by my math, that's over 220 universally designed units that should be part of this project, and that's 760 visitable units that will be part of this project, so I was pretty excited about that. Chair Beth Kenny: But the other thing that came up at City Council last night was, they were discussing the rent control ordinance or ballot measure, rather. The current ordinance is going on the ballot, and I just wanted to let you all know, because what the ballot measure basically does is put the current ordinance in the City Charter and by putting that ordinance in the City Charter, it means that no changes can be made to that ordinance, without a public vote. So, if we decide, ""Oh, we really want to push to protect disabled people from no cause evictions,"" or ask for extra relocation costs for people who are disabled, or extra relocation time. Chair Beth Kenny: That would require, if this ballot measure passes, it would require a citywide vote. So it would have to go on the ballot. And honestly, for very small things, if they wanted to even change punctuation, it's my understanding that it would then have to go on a City ballot. And it made me think we should be thinking about what our disabled population faces in terms of rent, issues in rent stability, and certainly relocation if they have to move. I think there are some good issues we can be thinking and making some recommendations to the City Council regarding that. And I'd like it to be on our radar, and perhaps we can get an agenda speaker at some point to talk about that. Chair Beth Kenny: The November ballot has a ballot measure that is asking about, ""Should we put the current rent control ordinance into the City Charter?"" Well, I don't think that we can address really, the ballot measure. I wanted to let you guys know what that is, but it also sparked in me that we should just kind of proceed with, whether the ballot measure goes through or not, it might be something we should be looking at, protecting the disabled population who are renters in Alameda. And what sort of recommendations, if we need to make recommendations, what kind of recommendations we can make. Those are my announcements, and I think we'll go on to staff communication. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS 09/12/18 Page 27 of 29",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-07-11.pdf CityCouncil,2019-12-18,27,"City Council Workshop Workshop Report Management Partners Why managers can't always do what you want them to do: The manager can often be confronted with a situation of an individual council- member wanting something done that is not consistent with the wishes of the city council. The manager needs to respond to the direction of the city council as a whole. While managers try to be as responsive as possible to the needs/desires of individual members, on matters of any consequence, the direction of the city council will often be required. Take your role to evaluate your city manager's performance seriously: Like any other employee, the city manager benefits from regular and thoughtful performance evaluations. Performance evaluations are an important communication tool between the manager and council. Working for multiple individuals is challenging enough without clear and consistent feedback on performance. At least annual evaluations should be conducted. This provides the opportunity to communicate how the council views the manager's performance, including areas of strength and areas for potential additional emphasis. This is also the only opportunity for the council as a whole to provide this input in private. Also, due to the inherent challenge of multiple individuals attempting to evaluate an individual who works for them as a group, the use of a consultant to facilitate the evaluation can be very helpful. If done right, evaluations can be a very valuable communication mechanism for the council and manager. Tolerance for organizational imperfection (mistakes!): While no one likes mistakes, they are unavoidable in the context of organizational life. Cities are complex organizations dealing with a wide variety of services with unique and sometimes challenging clientele. It is not a matter of whether mistakes will be made, but when. It is critical as a leader of your city that you react to mistakes appropriately. While mistakes should be avoided to the greatest extent possible, overreacting can cause further damage. You should expect that mistakes will be addressed promptly, fully disclosed and that steps will be taken to avoid repeating the same mistakes again. You will need to trust the manager to follow up and effectively address the situation when organizational miscues occur. Have high expectations but recognize that mistakes will occur, even in the best organizations, and try not to overreact when they do. Support of reasonable risk-taking: High-performing organizations will occasionally need to take ""reasonable risks"" in order to achieve community objectives. Sometimes these endeavors will not be successful. However, organizations that avoid ANY unnecessary risk are not likely to accomplish a great deal. While city councils need to be informed and concur that the risk being taken is reasonable for the potential benefit being gained, councils should also be understanding that projects and initiatives that have inherent unknowns may not always turn out as hoped Intolerance for any - -7- 21",CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-03-01,27,"Mayor Spencer nominated Michaela Tsztoo for appointment to the CDI; Arthur Kurrasch for reappointment to the HABOC and Tina Landess Petrich and Robert Schrader for appointment to the RRAC. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:44 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-16,27,"(21-754) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to hear additional items past 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Knox White stated November has a fifth Tuesday for the month; noted the December 7th Council meeting agenda will be full; there is no way for Council to get through the work; expressed support for calling a special meeting to hear the rest of the agenda. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing the parking management program [paragraph no 21- 1 and any of the remaining Council Referrals, while ending the meeting at midnight and continuing the remaining Regular Agenda items to a special meeting. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the Housing Element [paragraph no 21- 1 and General Plan [paragraph no 21- should be heard at a special meeting. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about meeting near the Thanksgiving holiday. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not support the motion; expressed support for starting the Housing Element discussion. Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for a special meeting. Councilmember Knox White withdrew his motion. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of finishing the current matter, directing staff to find a time that works for the most Councilmembers possible between now and December 7th to hold a special meeting. The City Clerk stated the date must be specified and the matters must be continued to the date specific due to noticing requirements. Councilmember Knox White stated the 11:00 p.m. vote is for hearing new matters after 11:00 p.m.; inquired whether the vote to continue items can occur after 11:00 p.m., to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether consideration can be given to the proposal from Councilmember Herrera Spencer related to starting the Housing Element discussion. Councilmember Knox White responded that he does not see value in starting the discussion just to stop at a random time and having public comment coming in sporadically. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of continuing the meeting until midnight hearing the agenda as-presented. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would prefer not to start the Housing Element. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Housing Element can be continued to the Continued Item section of the agenda on the next Council agenda, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2021 16",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2019-03-13,27,"ITEM 3-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, March 13, 2019, 6:30 PM I'm gathering, is that they moved the entire classroom of probably middle school kids in special education. But transitions are really difficult. And they're difficult for anyone, especially for children and children that have disabilities. It can be very difficult. As well as considering how to ready the new community to receive a classroom now of special education students. And did the teachers follow? Jenn Barrett: And maybe there's a statement that we can bring to the school board. Jennifer Roloff: And I think what we talked about earlier. Where we can interject, where the city can play, will also be part of the greater conversation, not necessarily this issue. Jenn Barrett: Right. And because you've been nominated by our commission to speak on behalf of our commission at the school board, there might be an ability for us to write a statement and have that said by you at one of their meetings. Jennifer Roloff: Okay, if you circulate something. Leslie Morrison: Yes. Jennifer Roloff: I can send some feedback and maybe just say enough. Jenn Barrett: I think it's something that we should also bring up with the City Council as well. Jennifer Roloff: Yes. Jenn Barrett: I think it's very important. Leslie Morrison: This article describes the children as some of them are non-verbal, some of them, it sounds like they have moderate to severe cognitive impairments. So significant sensory issues, all of which, those kinds of transitions would be something you'd want to plan more carefully. Jenn Barrett: What I'm wondering, are they getting special transportation now to this different location? Leslie Morrison: I suspect that their transportation followed, so they were transporting them to Lincoln and now they're transporting them to Wood. But the transition itself is Jenn Barrett: Is hard. Leslie Morrison: Hard. Jenn Barrett: Definitely. Okay, thank you so much for bringing that to our attention. Really important. So I will also bring that up with Laurie and see that we can do something prior to our next meeting, because our next meeting is so far away. 03/13/19 Page 27 of 28",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2019-03-13.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-10,27,"will get people to submit proposals; questioned what the timeline and process would be if there are no applicants. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Matarrese's approach; stated waterfront property is diminishing on the Island; Council has heard arguments for more square footage for maritime uses; artist studios are permitted in other areas of the property and around the City; throughout the City, uses that do not need to be on the water are on the water, such as Recreational Vehicle (RV) storage; the developers can request a modification; she disagrees with Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion to eliminate open space; she would like to keep the public open space along the Bay Trail; she is excited about the project; discussed housing development; expressed support for and discussed the 50/50 rental/for sale housing mix, the environmental aspect of the project, and the RFP/RFQ process; stated the project opens the waterfront to all. Councilmember Oddie stated that he thinks the project is exciting and was made better; he would like page 49 to say at least 50% rental, instead of ownership; expressed concern over modification being made by Councilmembers voting against an item. Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern over housing ratios; stated that she does not want an extra step slowing down housing; flexibility should be built in for where the market is going to ensure the project comes to fruition; the project is going to be a win for the maritime community, neighbors and future waterfront residents; there is intent to have a modern, efficient boatyard; hopefully, community members will make the RFQ/RFP successful; the project is an alternate way to fund necessary infrastructure, deals with mid-century sea level rise and creates a funding mechanism for the future; hopefully, the developer will continue to work with the City on traffic mitigation, such as additional crossings; she is ready to support the project with the minor changes, including removal of artist studio space in the commercial core. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella want to eliminate the housing ratio to allow the market to decide, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded that she understands there was a lot of discussion to have the ratio in the Plan. The Assistant Community Development Director stated the developer has to come back to the Planning Board for all of the phases; the Planning Board could be given the authority to adjust the ratio; the development process will take five to ten years and the market will change. Councilmember Oddie stated that he remains concerned about the lack of rental housing. Mayor Spencer stated that she wants the percentage included in the Plan; she supports the 30% for workforce/middle-income housing, which is critical and was not achieved at Site A; 50% should be for sale; she likes the mix; she would like to hear more on Councilmember Matarrese's proposal to eliminate the green space. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 19 July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf OpenGovernmentCommission,2015-02-02,27,"Commissioner Dieter stated the City Manager might make a statement that does not necessarily represent the City. Vice Chair Foreman added or the Mayor or a Councilmember or a member of the Planning Board; stated they have a right to state their opinion, but questioned not to be disciplined or reprimanded for it; someone can state any opinion on anything and it can be as out in left field and prejudicial to the City, but if you state it as an individual, not as a member of the body, it is not disciplined; there is case law about statements that can be made and not be disciplined under freedom of speech; however, the language is kind of carte blanche. The Assistant City Attorney stated similar to the previous section, the issue is very difficult and contentious; the courts bound around about whether or not a person is bringing forth a matter that is of public concern, which one has the right to do, notwithstanding the fact that the person is an employee, versus bringing forth something that is really just complaining about one's job, which the person does not have the right to do in a public forum; he is just trying to clarify the existing language; that is the only purpose of making the amendments; he attempted to work with what was initially adopted rather than trying to write a very nuanced dissertation about when an employee can and cannot be disciplined. Vice Chair Foreman stated his thoughts would be to not have the Section at all; leave it to the courts to determine in individual situations because the cases are all over the place. The City Clerk stated the intent of the Sunshine Task Force adding the section was so that employees or board and commission members would not feel like if they had an opinion on a project as an individual, they could not come to a Council meeting [to express the opinion]; people would be getting up as an individual and allowed to still have an opinion on a specific project. Vice Chair Foreman stated there is no such thing as the Mayor getting up in public and making a statement about a City matter, but saying she is not doing it as Mayor. The City Clerk noted the language used to say City board, commission or committee, which could be changed back; specifying public employees, boards, commissions or committees excluded the Council in the past; perhaps staff can provide that distinction; stated just because a person on a City board does not want to feel like they are losing their right to come, as an individual, and comment, which is the intent. The Assistant City Attorney stated the idea is that it would be applicable to public employees and policy bodies, other than the elected officials. Vice Chair Foreman stated the language he does not like is: ""shall not be disciplined for;"" ""nothing in this section shall be construed to provide rights to public employees or policy board members beyond those recognized by law or agreement or create a new Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 27",OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2016-11-01,27,"Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of adopting the referral as written; stated the SSHRB is working on a specific plan for Jean Sweeney Park; he would like to make sure all the policies for Police procedures and recommendations come to Council. The City Manager responded the kick off will be in December. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated there should be a project specific update in December; he would like the ongoing review of City policies and procedures and recommendations from the SSHRB to come to Council. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like to wait to hear what SSHRB says about Operation Dignity and then make a decision. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he is asking the SSHRB to help the City systematically look at all the City's policies and procedures and come back with recommendations. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Council makes recommendations when the SSHRB comes to Council. Vice Mayor Matarrese responded Council is not making recommendations. The City Manager stated when the issue comes to Council in December, the immediate plan can be discussed and Council will provide input for policy matters; the SSHRB wants direction from Council. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 3. Abstentions: Councilmembers Daysog and Ezzy Ashcraft - 2. (16-578) Consider Directing the City Manager to Initiate Revisions to the Ordinances and Code Sections for Mixed-Use Zoning in the City of Alameda to Aid Retention of Beneficial Commercial Uses within Areas Zoned for Mixed Use. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) Refer to the first referral on inclusionary housing [paragraph no. 16-573 for City Manager comments on all the referrals. Dorothy Freeman, Alameda, spoke before the Council referrals were heard. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing the City Manager to initiate revisions to the ordinances and Code sections for mixed-use zoning in the City of Alameda. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese would accept a Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf CityCouncil,2015-10-20,27,"Councilmember Daysog stated there is great progress at Alameda Point. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Alameda is becoming a great place to attract new business. Councilmember Oddie stated Council needs to not lose sight of the big picture; adaptive reuse buildings need a lot of work; Council needs to not micromanage or businesses will not want to come to Alameda. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated periodic reports are a good idea and should continue on a regular basis; the raw data should be provided, including details about square footage, option to purchase and investment in the building in the future; requested reports be provided on a quarterly or semi-annual basis. Mayor Spencer noted Google purchased Makani, which has been an Alameda company since 2006; there is a higher level of due diligence when an action requires four votes. Councilmember Daysog stated it seems that a lot of businesses that come to Alameda are related to existing businesses; inquired if there is a business organization at Alameda Point. The Economic Development Division Manager responded the tenants are working on a business association. Councilmember Daysog requested Council be provided an update on the Main Street District. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (15-631) The Interim City Manager made an announcement about a job fair recently hosted by the City. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (15-632) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments about the recent job fair. (15-633) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Commission on Disability Issues (CDI). Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf CityCouncil,2009-01-06,27,"Commissioner Tam stated northern elevation improvements were value engineered out i improvements are expected; plants are functional and remove toxins that she does not support the motion. Commissioner deHaan stated the strip needs covering; maintenance is an issue. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Gilmore, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 3. Noes Commissioners deHaan and Tam - 2. ADJOURNMEN'T There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 4 January 6, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf CityCouncil,2018-06-05,27,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether the sales tax measure requires three or four votes, to which the Acting City Manager responded three. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated a majority of Council does not feel there is enough time to do community outreach and education to place an infrastructure bond on the ballot; inquired how the bond measure differs from the outreach and community education for the sales tax measure; stated she would have liked to do both measures. The Acting City Manager stated the sales tax issue is primarily operational, which has been discussed over the last two years; forecasts are known; there have been conversations about future gaps; the sales tax measure is a way to help bridge the gap. Councilmember Matarrese stated the sales tax measure is not his preferred option, but he is going to make a motion. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval directing staff to go forward with the sales tax measure. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when Council needs to decide if the sales tax measure should address both operations and capital needs; inquired what the motion includes. Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion is to get the discussion going; part of the discussion is whether Council wants to modify the measure to include some capital; Council needs to determine if and how the funds should be sliced up. The Public Works Director stated dedicating the funds too specifically to a project or program could cause the measure to require a two-thirds threshold. Councilmember Matarrese stated the measure may require a two-thirds vote if a Statewide measure qualifies and passes in November. (18-344) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue past 11:00 p.m. Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of continuing the meeting. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: No. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. *** Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion is to adopt the draft Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf CityCouncil,2007-06-19,27,"Councilmember Gilmore stated the grant application process should be done on a two-year cycle; she has no problem with funding the Museum; she has a problem with escalating rent; she does not want to be in the same situation when the lease comes up in two years; the City needs to help the Museum with finding a site if funding raising is not enough to cover a projected rent increase; the City is spending approximately $80,000 on the Museum and Meyers House; the Meyers is an issue because it is a deteriorating asset; the City needs to set aside a reserve fund to take care of issues or consider reverting back to the trust. Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Gilmore stated the Recreation and Park Department has taken on another burden; the Meyers House funding needs to be reviewed. Mayor Johnson requested that the Museum agreement come back to Council. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of ARRA Resolution Approving and Adopting the Operating Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2007-08; the CIC Resolution Approving and Adopting the Operating Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2007-08. and the City Council Resolution Approving and Adopting the Operating Budget and Capital Improvements and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2007-08, with maintaining the rent level for the museum. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution Establishing Guidelines for Reimbursement of Per Diem Allowance for City of Alameda Business Travel. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of pursuing an agreement with the Alameda Museum including the ability to match funds to the full amount of the line item [$50,000], and the requirement that the Museum establish a business plan, fund raising plan, performance standards, and performance report. Mayor Johnson requested that the motion be amended to require that Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 16 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 19, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf CityCouncil,2006-10-17,27,"Alameda County subject to the CMA or just everyone generally. The City Engineer responded at least Alameda County because CMA requires that Voyager Cube be used for a General Plan update for CMA's link analysis; stated other traffic models can be used for the operational analysis. Councilmember Daysog inquired why the link analysis is important. The City Engineer responded the link analysis shows if there is sufficient capacity on roadway systems a deficiency occurs if there is not sufficient capacity; CMA would require that the situation be mitigated, which costs money. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the EMM2 has a link analysis. The City Engineer responded in the affirmative; stated the CMA did not like the software. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he interpreted that the autopilot is not an issue for Policy No. 7 and would go through the process of being evaluated. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember deHaan stated many EIRs are coming forward; he hopes that overall developments are reviewed when looking at the Transportation Master Plan, not just segments that are coming forward; the piece meal affect does nothing but get one segment through. Councilmember Matarrese stated an hour has been spent discussing the issue; Council would be remise in not thanking the Transportation Commission and Public Works staff for all the analysis. the issue is difficult; countless hours have been spent on the issue; he does not want anyone to misconstrue that the issue is easy and Council is just trying to forward on with the matter ; the issue is a moving target and changes with people's habits, let alone development. he is thankful for the volunteers and engineers who know what they are doing. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (06-523) Rob Schmidt, Alameda, requested an explanation on how the cable system will grow to be financially viable soon. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 October 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf CityCouncil,2005-06-07,27,"would like to have a six month review; she does not want to bog down the process; the right amount of money needed for urgent matters should be set; the Charter also allows the Council to delegate the authority to other boards and commissions; the Council should consider delegating the hiring of outside counsel for Alameda Power & Telecom to the Public Utilities Board. Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not feel there is over spending in the City Attorney's office. Mayor Johnson stated that she is not suggesting changing the budget amount she is trying to follow the Charter. Councilmember deHaan stated that the budget began with focus on the General Fund; special revenue funds, capital projects, debt service, and enterprise funds also need to be reviewed. Mayor Johnson stated that all the funds are intermingled to a certain extent and have impacts on each other. Board Member deHaan moved adoption of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Resolution. Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Commissioner deHaan moved adoption of the Community Improvement Commission Resolution. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the City Council Resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05-031CIC) - Recommendation to approve the Determination that planning and administrative expenses incurred during FY 2004-05 are necessary for the production, improvement or preservation of low- and moderate-income housing. Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation. Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 12 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf CityCouncil,2020-03-03,27,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft suggested the motion be revised to include the meeting end by 11:30 p.m. Councilmember Oddie agreed to the time, which could be revisited. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The Recreation and Parks Director continued the presentation. Expressed support for DePave Park being the top priority; discussed environmental benefits of the park; expressed support for additional staff: Dawn Lemoine, Expressed support for proceeding with DePave Park; requested the project be prioritized; expressed support for additional staff: Ruth Abbe, CASA. Urged moving forward with the planning process for DePave Park: Richard Bangert, Alameda. Stated human use will increase as Alameda Point is developed, which will impact birds in the area; discussed warming and acidification of the ocean; urged approval of the list and starting to look for a consultant and additional staffing: Marjorie Powell, Golden Gate Audubon Society. Vice Mayor Knox White stated the staff report provided a lot of information; the staff report states there are many priorities, with no staffing; that he would not support the new sustainability and resiliency position to act as an adjunct Recreation and Parks Department position; noted that he has been a strong voice for DePave Park; expressed concern about DePave park not being in plans; stated 11 resiliency projects are unfunded in the Climate Action Resiliency Plan (CARP); urged being careful about jumping a park to the head of a line after holistic planning around parks and climate; stated staff has identified funding to help plan DePave Park, which will be available later this year and is not available to fund any other unfunded needs the City has for resiliency; should Council provide direction, a recommendation should be made based on the City's resources; discussed a meeting held with traffic and safety; stated that he cannot support a vote to approve a position for Recreation and Parks specifically because he has not seen all asks; expressed support for the presented priorities; stated the staff report has laid out finishing items that have been started; work should start where items do not conflict and interfere; Proposition AA is the funding source; expressed support for funds that become available later this year to write grants for consultants to do planning to expand City resources. Councilmember Vella stated that she defers a little from Vice Mayor Knox White; stated there is different direction for DePave Park; DePave Park was discussed prior to November 2019; other water-based parks are coming up through developer projects; expressed support for focusing on DePave Park, including plans and discovering Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 March 3, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-19,27,"The Assistant Community Development Director inquired whether staff will have flexibility in the repayment terms; noted some repayment terms might exceed lease terms. Councilmember Oddie responded that he is open to having flexible repayment terms. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated terms may be individualized to particular business's needs; staff will have the best knowledge of the needs and can negotiate; expressed support for staff having flexibility. Vice Mayor Knox White expressed concern about picking companies that are thought of as good. Councilmember Oddie stated the use of the lease term will assist the repayment terms. On the call for the question, the motion passed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (20-341) Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether a motion can be made to ensure all items will be heard. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she could support a motion that any item which has public speakers will be heard; noted some items on the regular agenda need to move forward; stated that she is unsure the entire agenda will be heard. *** *** Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft recessed the special meeting at 10:02 p.m. and reconvened the meeting 10:20 p.m. *** (20-342) Recommendation to Endorse Implementation of Temporary Street Reconfigurations to Provide Space for Social Distancing in Response to the COVID-19 Emergency. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the recusal requires members to be out of the [Zoom] picture. The City Attorney responded that his recommendation would be to have Councilmembers Daysog and Oddie step ""off the dais"" or off camera for the entirety of public comment. The City Engineer gave a brief presentation on commercial and business districts. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 18 May 19, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-19.pdf CityCouncil,2008-01-15,27,"Waterfront Improvement Area) Series 2003C, and the Commission's $1,025,000 Taxable Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds (Business and Waterfront Improvement Area) , Series 2003D, Approving the Form and Authorizing and Directing Execution of a Guaranty Agreement Relating to Such Surety Bond and Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto. Adopted. AGENDA ITEM (08-07) - Recommendation to adopt the update to the Economic Development Strategic Plan. The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation. Commissioner deHaan stated that surveys indicate that Alameda Point top priorities include 1) Recreation amenities; 2) public access to the waterfront; and 3) job creations through commercial development; affordable housing and historical preservation ranked lower. The Development Services Director stated specific plan goals address the need to ensure that the development includes multi- modal, transit-oriented-development concepts a good mix of commercial, industrial and retail uses developing a core center ; public access issues; and public benefits. Commissioner deHaan inquired how valid was the study's demographics. The Development Services Director responded the survey was statistically valid; voting and non-voting residents were surveyed. Commissioner deHaan stated that a concerning factor has always been where people work; other surveys indicate that 42% of residents work in San Francisco; the current survey indicates that only 5% work in San Francisco; the developer needs to understand the percentage because of transportation corridor issues. Chair Johnson stated that the Public Transit Committee performed a survey which showed a high number of South Bay commuters. The Development Services Director stated that she would like to do a survey comparison. Commissioner Matarrese stated the background information is good ; the Economic Development Commission [EDC] did a great job; he supports strategy one [create industrial and office jobs ] ; the follow up should connection what is going on with Harbor Bay Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 2 January 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf CityCouncil,2018-10-16,27,"Councilmember Oddie stated the language was just presented. Councilmember Oddie inquired if the language being considered includes the cleanup language. The Economic Development Manager responded the cleanup language needs to be approved. Mayor Spencer inquired if the cleanup language is part of this motion, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the motion includes cleanup language and the buffer. Councilmember Oddie inquired if the alignment of labor peace with State law does not change the number of employees the City requires before labor peace, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer moved approval [introduction of the regulatory ordinance]. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Matarrese - 1. The Economic Development Manager stated the final item to address is the Request for Proposals (RFP). Mayor Spencer inquired if a motion is needed. The Economic Development Director inquired if the Council wants the applicant to send out a 300-foot radius notice. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like it to be a pass/fail requirement; the requirement would be to send the notice; part of the Use Permit process is to allow people to weigh-in; the requirement is to certify that the applicant has notified people. Mayor Spencer concurred with Vice Mayor Vella. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Use Permit process starts when neighbors in the 300-foot radius are notified. Vice Mayor Vella stated the requirement is fine; the notice just needs to be certified as pass/fail and complete. The Economic Development Director inquired if the 300-foot notice portion of the RFP would be pass/fail. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 October 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf CityCouncil,2021-01-19,27,"challenges filed against the City relating to the City's rezoning of a parcel west of McKay Avenue to facilitate the development of a wellness center for unhoused persons and seniors; the City previously prevailed at the trial court and the plaintiffs had appealed the trial court decision to the court of appeal; the parties have reached a resolution where by the plaintiffs would dismiss this litigation in exchange for the City not seeking further fees and costs against the plaintiffs; the Council has authorized the City Attorney to resolve this litigation and execute documents, including settlement agreements, consistent with the above and accept the dismissal on behalf of the City and the City employees/council members in their official capacity; regarding Real Property, the matter was withdrawn and not heard; regarding the Amicus, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: No; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3; Noes: 2; the City has been asked to join numerous other local jurisdictions by authoring and/or signing on to amicus briefs to be filed in the above case to support the Los Angeles City's existing moratorium ordinance prohibiting evictions for COVID-related unpaid rent for twelve months after the expiration of the local emergency; this moratorium ordinance is similar to Alameda's existing law providing similar protections; the eviction moratorium at issue falls squarely within the City's police power to promote public health, safety, and welfare during a pandemic; the moratorium has done so by enabling residents to shelter in place and socially distance; additionally, consistent with the District Court's holdings, the moratorium does not substantially impart a landlord's contractual rights with tenants; plaintiff's expansive and incorrect reading of the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution could unduly erode local control and limit state and local governmental authority to enact regulatory measures to safeguard the welfare of their residents during a crisis; the Council has authorized the City Attorney to author and/or sign amicus briefs in support of Los Angeles City in this matter, in any trial or appellate court of competent jurisdiction; regarding Nevarez, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5I this litigation involves claims of ADA violations by the Plaintiffs at the Corica Park Golf Course. The City has tendered the litigation to Greenway given their operation and management of the Golf Course. The City Council has authorized the City Attorney to waive certain conflicts to permit attorneys, including Gerry Ramiza and Greg Akar, at the law firm of Burke Williams & Sorensen to handle the defense of this litigation. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-11-28,27,"ITEM 2-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 28, 2018, 6:30 PM Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: You can report it to me.And then I'll spread the word. Jennifer Roloff: Okay, thank you. That's all I have for today. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Thank you so much. Commissioner Deutsch. Susan Deutsch: So I went to the park and rec mission meeting, and I presented about inclusive playgrounds. I thought they were very receptive. I heard that they liked my presentation, just from somebody, randomly, who heard about it. So I think it really went well. They're, right now, in the process of re-doing Littlejohn Park, and that park is going to have some inclusive aspects to it, but it's not going to be totally inclusive; it's a small park. And I think they're going to be talking more as they re-do other parks and build other parks. They're going to be talking more about how they can make the playgrounds more inclusive from the conversations. So I could send out a copy of what their plans are, for Littlejohn Park, but you really can't tell from the picture, really. But if everyone wants that, I can send it to Laurie and she can send it out or however. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Great. Are their plans pretty solidified at this point? Susan Deutsch: For Littlejohn, yeah, yeah, that's S solidified, so we can't make changes for that. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: So maybe future parks we can try to get in early. Susan Duetsch: Yeah, they're really open to it for future Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Oh, that's awesome, great. Anto Aghapekian: I was speaking with one of the commissioners about your presentations, and he said that he was very impressed as well as the other members of the commission, and they learned a lot from your presentation, not only they would invest, but they're going to use some of the items with the presentation in their future plans. Susan Deutsch: Thank you. I had that impression from them. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: So Commissioner Morrison, just so you're aware that each year during our retreat, we have specific organizations or Commissions within the city that we all attend. And so during our retreat, we'll re-categorize who would like to be a representative for our commission and attend meetings or events, etcetera, so that the city knows that we're available as a resource and that we're able to get information from them and provide information to them, so it works out well. Leslie Morrison: Great. Looking forward to participating. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Great. Commissioner Anto. Anto Aghapekian: I don't have much. The city was very quiet, I guess it was maybe because after 03/13/19 Page 27 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-11-28.pdf CityCouncil,2017-06-06,27,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCTY TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) TUESDAY--JUNE 6, 2017- -7:01 P.M. Mayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 11:49 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer - 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*17-365 CC/17- SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission (SACIC) Held on May 2,2017. Approved. (*17-366 CC/17- SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Fourth Quarter Financial Report for the Period Ending June 30, 2016. Accepted. (*17-367 CC/17- SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the First Quarter Financial Report for the Period Ending September 30, 2016. Accepted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (*17-368 CC) Resolution No. 15272, ""Approving and Adopting the City of City Alameda Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Years (FY) 2017-18 and 2018-19."" Adopted; (17- SACIC) Resolution No. 17-07, ""Approving and Adopting the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Budget for FY 2017-18 and 2018-19."" Adopted; (17-368 A CC) Resolution No. 15273, ""Approving Workforce Changes in the Recreation and Parks Department, Public Works Department, Community Development Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency 1 to the Community Improvement Commission June 6, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,27,"The City Manager inquired whether the clarification needed is in relation to the Fire fees. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded that she would like clarification on more than just the Fire fees; stated there are alternatives as to when certain fees are put into effect; expressed support for clarification provided on the Fire fees. The Finance Director stated there are no increases to the current Master Fee Schedule however, there are changes to the Schedules for fiscal year 2021-2022; the first change are hourly rate increases for City Attorney Office staff and Police; noted Special Events have been adjusted to reflect personnel costs; the second change is associated with the Recreation and Parks Department; the third change is the Rent Stabilization Program Fee study which had been recommended on a tier fee structure; the fourth change is a Planning, Building and Transportation Department change to no longer impose a fee for accessory dwelling units; the fifth change is for a repeal of Alameda Point Development Fees; and the sixth change are Fire Department fee increase recommendations, both full increases or half increases; noted Council may decide not to increase Fire fees due to COVID-19. The City Manager requested the original fee increase to be highlighted as well as the half increase; noted fees had been increased prior to his arrival at the City in 2019; stated the fees are based on a Fee Study and a report of costs for service; the fee increase had previously been delayed due to COVID-19; the reason for the recommendation of a half fee increase is due to the fee increase being substantial; a no fee increase due to COVID-19 would also be understandable. Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification for the fees. The Finance Director stated the fees are highlighted on page 34-38 on the fee schedule; staff can either increase as-is or forego the increase and wait until the next fiscal year to implement changes. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the impacts of each option. The Finance Director responded the Fire Department will receive less revenue for services should Council only approve the half increase; stated the department may have to reduce expenditures. The City Manager stated the General Fund currently subsidizes the costs; the proposed fees will bring the proposed amounts in line with being full recovered; full cost recovery will take longer should the half increase be approved. The Finance Director stated the increase is about 9%. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the ambulance is included in the fee Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-20,27,"Under discussion, Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the process was very thorough when SunCal was selected; that she did not vote for SunCal but supported the position of the majority of the Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners; Councilmembers/ Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese did not vote for SunCal but also supported the selection of the majority of the Council/Board Members/Commissioners; four Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners made an effort to accept the vote to work, support, and cooperate with SunCal; that she appreciates SunCal's community outreach; situations leading to Measure B took a turn for the worse; the relationship between SunCal and the City has gotten worse; the community made an effort to work with SunCal; SunCal has not returned the community's good faith efforts; that she has had an open relationship with SunCal and has expressed community concerns; there is too much development; she does not see how all the traffic could get through two lanes in the Tube in both directions; her family members lived in Alameda at the peak of the former Naval Base; that her grandmother could not get out of her driveway on the 1700th block of Versailles Avenue because Base workers would come over the Fruitvale Bridge; people accepted and supported traffic backups because of Alameda's contribution toward national security and military efforts; allowing an inappropriate development is different; she ran for Council twelve years ago to help guide the former Naval Base redevelopment; the City needs a trustworthy partner; some of the things that SunCal has done questions SunCal's trustworthiness; that she does not think SunCal's threats and bullying is appropriate, particularly when a decision has not been made; she never makes up her mind until there has been a public hearing; that she is very concerned about the project's financial feasibility; she does not think there could be a 25% IRR; now she is learning there would be a 25% profit in addition. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated one incident does not change a person's mind; that he has supported and given all to SunCal; having a developer spend more than $1.25 million on a campaign is bizarre; spending another $1.5 million on pre-campaign efforts is equally bizarre; the community should be proud that it pushed back with less than $22,000; money does not buy loyalty and trust; money should not flow inappropriately. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she is being attacked in her efforts to keep Alameda government open and honest; that she wants to be clear that the correspondence in the documents and allegations, including the ones to the fire fighters, SunCal, and whoever has asked her questions, shows that she has diligently followed up on the tough questions with the Interim City Manager/Executive Director and that she has pushed to have important questions answered; having said that, with the vote this evening, the MOEA may not be the plan the City ultimately wants at Alameda Point; staff has made some assumptions on financial and environmental impacts; the historic resources group has made some findings that are part of the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 15 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-05,27,"CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (17-437) The City Manager thanked the Coast Guard for help with 4th of July parade; stated Building 91, owned by Joe Ernst, is in line for becoming an organic malt cultivation facility, the building is being purchased for $3 million, which starts the City's contribution for improving the infrastructure at Alameda Point. Councilmember Matarrese requested an update on Public Utilities Board (PUB) local solar and Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). The City Manager stated RECs are green credits that the City can sell to other companies that are not as green; the City has used the money for additional green efforts; the question at the next PUB meeting will be how to spend the approximately $9 million; the City's previous goals are community solar; AMP is conducting a feasibility study on Mount Trashmore as a possible site for community solar. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the feasibility study is currently underway, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the REC funds will be allocated. The City Manager responded direction will be given on how to allocate the funds. Vice Mayor Vella inquired what is the timeline for the feasibility study. The City Manager responded that she is unaware but she will find out. COUNCIL REFERRALS (17-438) Consider Directing Staff to Propose Regulations to Authorize Convenient and Safe Cannabis Businesses in Alameda. (Mayor Spencer) Mayor Spencer made brief comments regarding the referral. Councilmember Oddie requested an update from staff. The City Manager stated the previous referral was medium priority due to the timeline for the State regulations; staff has held an internal workshop regarding cannabis and is going to have the consultant return to share information with Council tentatively set for the September 5th Council meeting; Council will address activities that should be regulated and policy planning; the City has until January 2018; the City's quality of life survey includes a question regarding opinions on cannabis. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to have dispensaries sooner rather than later. Stated she is a patient and a potential business owner; she owns a topical cannabis Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf CityCouncil,2006-12-05,27,"Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated internet connection would be needed; negotiations could include utilizing Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) as the preferred provider on residential and commercial land sales. he would like to see municipal electric buses utilized. The Supervising Planner stated the TDM program would explain whether alternative fuel vehicles are used, and if not, why not; an annual report would review the decision. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated there are many areas in Alameda where AP&T infrastructure is excluded. louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he does not care what type of bus people take, as long as busses are used as alternative vehicles. Mr. Marshall stated Catellus has demonstrated willingness to discuss all issues; he would prefer to be better informed before making a commitment to use a particular provider. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated issues have been discussed for some time; he wants the AP&T connection for the internet. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated AP&T would install the infrastructure into the buildings. Gregory Weaver, Catellus Managing Director, noted that by law Catellus could not require everyone to use a particular energy provider in Austin, Texas; a preferred provider package was marketed. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City could not require residents to sign up with AP&T; infrastructure does not need to be installed for other companies. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan suggested that the issue be referred to the City Attorney inquired whether Catellus has put together a tentative agreement with the unions, to which Mr. Marshall responded in the affirmative. louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he would like to add: ""visually enhances the surrounding areas which represent a key Alameda gateway"" to Pubic Benefits Exhibit C. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 16 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-18,27,"Sheet. A Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project was Certified in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (State Clearinghouse #2006012091) in 2006. An Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Actions has been Prepared. The City Attorney clarified the order of the remaining items. The Community Development Director and Assistant Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the impact of traffic includes residential plus commercial. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the trips include the total from morning to night. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the impact of having more homes, thus more traffic and parking, is taken into account. The Assistant Community Development Director responded all trips are accounted for in the EIR. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) would have more money to build more schools with the school impact fees. The Assistant Community Development Director responded AUSD will be receiving larger school impact fees due to the increased housing. Mayor Spencer inquired how AUSD will ensure they have additional classrooms for the additional students. The Assistant Community Development Director responded that AUSD receives notice about all of City projects. The City Manager clarified Mayor Spencer's question is whether the City can tell AUSD to add more classrooms; stated the City does not have any control over how AUSD spends its money. The Community Development Director continued the presentation. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Catellus owns the land. The Community Development Director responded the land is owned by the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission (SACIC); stated the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) is a purchase and sale agreement between the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf CityCouncil,2022-01-04,27,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 4, 2022--6:59 P.M. Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Knox White, Spencer and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.] Absent: Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella - 1. CONSENT CALENDAR The City Clerk announced anyone wishing to comment on the Public Hearing [paragraph no. *22-005 CC/22-02 SACIC] could comment at this time. There were no speakers. Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella - 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*22-004 CC/22-01 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC Meetings Held on November 16, 2021 and December 7, 2021. Approved. (*22-005 CC/22-02 SACIC) Public Hearing to Consider City of Alameda Resolution No. 15855/SACIC Resolution No. 22-14 ""Approving the Development List of Affordable Housing Projects and Funding Request for Such Projects as Requested by the Alameda Unified School District."" Adopted; and (*22-005A CC/22-02A SACIC) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Submit the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) and Administrative Budget for the Period from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023 to the Countywide Oversight Board. Accepted. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission 1 January 4, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf CityCouncil,2020-02-18,27,"COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (20-109) Councilmember Oddie announced that he is on the League of California Cities Environmental Quality Policy Committee. (20-110) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement regarding Association of Bay Area Government and Metropolitan Transportation Commission meetings and the Alameda Mayors Conference. (20-111) Vice Mayor Knox White announced the Charter subcommittee would bring issues in March and April; he and Councilmember Oddie are holding a Town Hall on transportation safety. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 18, 2020 25",CityCouncil/2020-02-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-16,27,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether it could happen concurrently. The Assistant City Attorney responded the ordinance is not set up that way; stated 50% is to be paid when the tenant gives notice and the other 50% when the tenant moves out; staff feels 50% is reasonable. Councilmember Oddie stated other cities follow the same process; tenants will have the hardship of relocating; there is always a risk that one or both parties will violate the agreement and will have to go to litigation; suggested a stipulated judgement be drawn up with a writ of execution. The Assistant City Attorney responded a court action needs to be filed for a stipulated judgement; he is not clear how to enforce a stipulated judgement without an underlying court action. Councilmember Oddie stated that he has experience with a stipulation pay; if rent is paid the case is dropped; when they go into default, the action would be filed. The Assistant City Attorney inquired whether there was already an underlying action, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative. The Assistant City Attorney stated the underlying action is missing from the suggestion. Mayor Spencer inquired what about an irrevocable notice of termination on a date certain. The Assistant City Attorney stated the City can create something, but it would not be self-executing and there is no guarantee that the parties will follow it. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with staff's proposal of 50% up front and 50% once the unit is vacated; urged Council to allow the provision for one year and revisit the matter to see if stricter provisions are needed. Mayor Spencer stated that the entire document is because of outliers; she feels even though the issues would impact a small percentage, the problem is significant. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated outlier landlords, not tenants, brought the City to this position. Mayor Spencer stated there needs to be an administrative regulation or something clear that there is an agreement; the tenant is choosing time or money and the legal arrangement carries weight. The Community Development Director stated staff is aware of the issue and will draft a document with the strongest language possible that is permissible; documentation that people have paid their relocation benefits is required so there will be a way to track the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-09-04,27,"Councilmember Oddie stated a confidentiality agreements would prevent tenants from telling the RRAC; he is concerned about the large decrease in number of rent increases. Vice Mayor Vella questioned if the City could track when someone goes to a RRAC member involved in a settlement outside the RRAC proceedings; suggested the annual, cumulative rent increase causing effective evictions be brought to the RRAC's attention and included in the information provided in the future. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she hopes changes can be made to the ordinance following the election in November; one of the main changes to be made is noting the actual relocation expenses versus the relocation assistance funds provided to tenants; that she is troubled by the allegations made against a particular RRAC member and would like to again renew her call to get rid of the RRAC altogether; resources can be used better by staff. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding Councilmembers and RRAC members appropriate roles, the City Attorney stated her office is looking into the matter in question. The Assistant City Attorney stated regular ongoing and onboarding meetings are included as part of the training provided to the RRAC members. The Community Development Director noted the Council had clearly directed staff to look into possibly revising relocation benefits. Mayor Spencer moved approval of accepting the annual report. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. *** Vice Mayor Vella left the meeting at 12:20 a.m. *** Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 September 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-09-04.pdf CityCouncil,2021-02-02,27,"the City Council Meeting Rules of Order. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she and Councilmember Knox White would serve on the subcommittee. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 February 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2009-02-07,27,"Mayor Johnson inquired what the $140 million represents, to which the Interim Finance Director responded the amount was from the Bartel report. Mayor Johnson stated the $70 million figure assumes that the federal government will enact national health care. The Interim Finance Director stated the assumption is not factored into the $75.6 million calculation; the amount increases to over $200 million if the City continues to pay-as-you-go. The City Manager and the Interim Finance Director continued the presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether investing $75 million at 4.5% would pay for the benefit; and whether borrowing said amount and paying interest would not be sufficient. The Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the scenario described would finance OPEB, which is not stationary and would increase and require overlaying debt. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $75 million only covers current and retired employees, to which the Interim Finance Director responded new employees are not included. The Interim Finance Director continued her presentation. The City Manager provided an overview of the actuarial. The Interim Finance Director continued her presentation. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether reaching $10 million would take 8 years, to which the Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the plan is to finance $25 million to pay for the 1079/1082 retirement plans, continue paying $2.1 million for OPEB [pay-as-you-go] and set aside and invest money for 8 years until it reaches $10 million. The Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the annual OPEB obligation would be absorbed until there is enough money to mitigate. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the tables assume the $10 million is compounding and nothing is taken out , to which the Special Meeting Alameda City Council 27 February 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-07,27,"COVID-19 has shown how important it is for families to have internet access; since people are not able to participate at meetings in person, wireless hotspots continue to be an important need; schools have tried to step up; however, not every family has children attending schools offering assistance and not every family has children; seniors have especially been left out during COVID-19; expressed concern about the hotel acquisition; stated the hotel is a revenue generating asset which produces Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for the City and is one of the few hotels in the City; TOT is important to the City; the hotel is operating and generating revenue for the City; she has concerns about removing one of the few hotels that produces a higher level of tax dollars for the City as opposed to looking at other ways of housing those who are unhoused and in need of transitional housing; taking away tax revenue defeats the purpose; the City needs income in order to be able to provide services; she is not sure the bottle parcel is the best use; she would like more information related to the fastest timeline to provide housing; the AHA housing proposals could very well be the quickest to get online; the AHA proposal will likely be the most effective use of any dollars and meet the needs as opposed to the City working alone without the AHA; expressed support for continuing the Feed Alameda program. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she strongly objects to any expenditure to AHA at this time; she would like more information including how much ARPA money AHA has received and why AHA would need the City's ARPA funding; there has been reference to the possibility of AHA completing the North Housing project sooner if the City provides ARPA funding; however, the North Housing project was conceived without ARPA funding; she does not know whether the intent is for AHA to get cheaper money due to zero finance charge from the City; if the funding is needed as supplemental funds, the funding would become a loan; she strongly agrees with Vice Mayor Vella that a community housing trust is something many cities have done; the trust allows the City to purchase properties; the AHA accomplished one transactions recently; however, AHA can find an apartment building for sale and guarantee a certain number of units will remain affordable for a certain amount of time; there is no reason the City cannot do the same; expressed support for the City working with a partner; expressed concern about eviction protections offered by AHA; outlined AHA eviction cases; stated AHA has not helped find alternative housing for some; she feels as though there are complexities associated with AHA; there are enough important matters requiring funding from the first tranche in Option 1 ; expressed support for not extending funds without safeguards in place for AHA at this time, for allocating some ARPA funds to Alameda Sun as a business which has been impacted by COVID-19 and for transitional housing; outlined the supportive transitional housing program; inquired whether the location for the program is the bottle parcel or an alternate location. The Assistant City Manager responded the location could be the bottle parcel; stated the idea is to put up temporary housing which can be put up quickly for fast services; the site can move around; the bottle parcel is ideal as a location. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined a visit to a transitional housing development in the City of Mountain View; stated the units look like containers, are insulated and have Heating, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 19",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-05-09,27,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MUTES OF Wednesday May 9, 2018 6:30 p.m. However, I believe they're doing something on the seaplane new ferry terminal this Monday, so hopefully I'll attend that. And then, I just want to make one comment about the event that We Are Alameda at the Faction brewing, they had someone from Alameda Hospital who announced that we just got, as of May 1st, Anthem Insurance in network there, which is huge, so I was excited to hear that. Beth Kenny: Commissioner Hall? Lisa Hall: Ongoing issues with the housing authority. Unfortunately, no cause evictions are still happening. And a senior disabled lady was in the family getting evicted, and the woman had a heart attack and died. And you didn't really hear anything about that in the newspaper or anything else, which is just a sad fact of what we're going through. Again, disabled and senior people are our most vulnerable, and it's a crisis in our city. Many of the churches are trying to get together to set up a warming center, which would help the homeless people at night, but also perhaps other people that may end up needing it. It has a great model from the Midway Shelter, same people that run Midway Shelter, and they have a warming center in San Leandro, and hopefully with a lot of support that we've already got in Alameda, it looks like it's going to come together. Hopefully, we're going to end up having a warming center for these people to go at nighttime. Hopefully that will happen. Beth Kenny: Great, thank you. Commissioner Aghapekian? Anto Aghapekian: And last thing is, it's been about half a year now, the Mastick Senior Center set up a exercise courtyard, exercise equipment that anybody can use, and it's become very popular, extremely popular, for who have issues moving their bodies. They do exercise, and it's a delight to see. I help out with making the bocce ball court and the golf putting court accessible. They didn't have any handrail over the curb. I worked with them on that and all credit should be given to the Rec and Parks Administration. They're very conscientious assisting. And that's all I have to report. I haven't been to the planning board meetings. I've been following them, but I haven't been personally. The planning board, they start around 7:00, I think, and they keep going on and on and on and on, and for topics that are absolutely of no interest to this commission. And so I try to follow up on the minutes. And I have never been to a rec and park meeting. I know the guy there by the name of Ron Limoges. Jennifer Roloff: He might be the chair. Anto Aghapekian: He's a friend of mine, we see each other very often and we do talk. But we're friends, I haven't spoken with him about business, but if there is anything that I can do, let me know. I'm more than happy, more than happy to help. Jennifer Roloff: And also, as far as the city goes, Mastick rolls into Parks and Rec, so you can talk to him directly about all of the Mastick stuff. Anto Aghapekian: And I have a met Amy Wooldridge. She's the director. And I have a good meeting. Anytime I can be of help. I'm dying to see that place. Susan Deutsch: I brought my husband there after I saw it. I just had to visit the playground. He was 05/30/18 Page 27 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-05-09.pdf CityCouncil,2007-01-02,27,"program would be drafted as part of the TDM Program and would be reviewed by the Transportation Commission. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether all three development agreements need to be acted upon tonight noted that she would abstain. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the ordinances that are not being amended can be acted upon this evening the ordinance for DA-06-003 can be addressed in two weeks and works with Catellus' schedule. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of final passage for MPA-06- 001, DA-06-0002, and DA-06-0004. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes Councilmember deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Vice Mayor Tam - 1. Councilmember Matarrese stated it is important to have the opportunity to augment the TDM Program because traffic is the biggest issue; the ordinance should be amended to state that the TDM Program would be measured by criteria established by the Planning Board and Transportation Commission; the timeframe would be after operating five years; the augmentation would not exceed 15% and would be contingent on financial performance exceeding the Performa. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the percentage would be linked to the percentage exceeding the Performa. Councilmember Matarrese responded the percentage would be linked to the percentage of the TDM Program budget in place at the time. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the 15% would be in addition to the CPI escalator. Councilmember Matarrese responded whatever the amount is at that time, stepped up over five years. Councilmember deHaan stated 15% over the escalated number is not much. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $425,000 would be reached in year five. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded most likely not; stated five years is about half way through the project. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf CityCouncil,2005-08-16,27,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMEN'T COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - - -AUGUST 16, 2005 - -6:45 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05-039) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property: Fleet Industrial Supply Center; Negotiating parties : Catellus Limited Operating Partnership and Community Improvement Commissioni Under negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission gave direction to Real Property Negotiators and no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf CityCouncil,2005-07-19,27,"interpretation, the special legal counsel is per matter, which is reasonable; someone can get started on a case; legal matters go by case; the City Attorney would not be hiring one person to do multiple cases. The City Attorney stated it is per matter or item, not per issue, subject, attorney, etc. Mayor Johnson stated reports must not just include litigation; the report the City Attorney provided on outside counsel only included litigation and not other non-litigation issues that outside counsel handle for the City. Councilmember deHaan inquired about the number of cases that hit the $35,000 threshold per year, possibly ten to twelve. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated that she estimates there are about 20 active litigation cases currently. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 20 cases would reach the $35,000 threshold, to which the City Attorney responded less than that [20 cases]. Councilmember deHaan stated no more than eight to ten cases will hit the $35,000 threshold over a year period of time the vast majority are in the $3,000 to $4,000 bracket; inquired whether the numbers [that will reach $35,000] are low. The City Attorney responded that in trying to get some rational basis to come up with a number, $35,000 is the exact median of the average cost of outside counsel, so half of the cases are below and half are above. Councilmember deHaan disagreed. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council received the report that shows the actual amount spent on different litigation cases. The City Attorney responded the report was provided last week. Councilmember deHaan stated the report provided can be fine-tuned and should work fine; that he does not see the number [of cases $35,000 or over] being that great; the Council is allowing 70% of the City Attorney's activity below the threshold; noted that he used the data the City Attorney provided. The City Attorney stated [$35,000] was found to be the median number ; one reason for the reporting to Council is that changes can Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf CityCouncil,2019-05-07,27,"clients have have the City Manager cast votes for simplicity. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Ayes; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes - 5. (19-283) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15534, ""Confirming the Webster Street Business Improvement Area (BIA) Assessment Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019=20 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Webster Street BIA."" Adopted. Councilmember Daysog recused himself and left the dais. Vice Mayor Knox White moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Vice Mayor Knox White: Aye; Councilmembers Oddie: Ayes; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.] (19-284) Recommendation to Approve Agreement Appointing Yibin Shen as City Attorney Effective May 13, 2019. The City Clerk read a summary of the City Attorney's salary and benefits. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the contract. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Ayes; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes - 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (19-285) The City Manager announced the City has put out a press release regarding the 4th of July parade; stated those interested in volunteering should contact the City Manager's Office for details. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (19-286) Councilmember Oddie, Daysog, Vice Mayor Knox White and Vella thanked the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 7, 2019 26",CityCouncil/2019-05-07.pdf CityCouncil,2017-04-18,27,"issues; not having control over issues is difficult; having the discussion is important; he supports the referral. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not support Council returning to its role as Board of Commissioners for the HA; doing so would mean Council has the potential of placing the HA Section 8 funds in jeopardy; she feels the remedy is extreme with a lot of dangerous repercussions. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she has concerns about the fiscal impacts; Council could address some of the rent program issues in connection with the services contract; she would prefer to maintain the basic relationship instead of taking the bigger step and placing funds in jeopardy. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to have more discussion on the referral; suggested a presentation from the HA to help Council understand how issues are being addressed; Council could reconsider after receiving more information; she does not support the referral at this point. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter is not agendized and Council cannot provide direction beyond directing staff to present steps as the referral states. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Matarrese stated modifying his referral would no longer make it a referral; suggested the next Rent Review Advisory Commission (RRAC) report or the management of rental complaints be expanded to include the status of the HA projects. The HA Executive Director stated there are privacy issues which may prevent disclosing tenant information; she would only be able to inform Council of general, statistical information. Councilmember Matarrese withdrew the referral. (17-270) Consider Directing Staff to Review and Update Alameda's 2008 Local Action Plan for Climate Protection. Not heard. (17-271) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Rules of Order for City Council Agendas and Meetings. Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 1:53 a.m. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 April 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-01-05,27,"In response to Councilmember Oddie's comment regarding rents already being limited to once per year, the Assistant City Attorney noted the lease that is offered one time might include other provisions. Councilmember Oddie outlined the lease renewal options he receives from his landlord with a one year lease being the lowest increase; a 6 month lease being slightly higher and month-to-month being the highest increase due to the uncertainty. The Community Development Director stated a number of properties have the same structure in Alameda, especially larger ones. Councilmember Daysog stated that he likes the direction Council is moving; the possibilities are being narrowed down; however, there seems to be fuzziness; the direction should be treated as a framework for further refinement. The Community Development Director concurred; stated the exercise is very helpful to staff because more precision will allow things to advance. Councilmember Daysog stated staff should take notes and continue to think about the issues more with public input. Mayor Spencer requested Council to weigh in about whether an existing tenant should be offered a year lease one time at a rent increase. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated the requirement is strictly to deal with the ordinance going into effect to have existing tenants be offered the same thing as new tenants; staff could review Mountain View's ordinance and see how in place tenants are being treated. Councilmember Daysog stated said review would be helpful. Mayor Spencer stated the Council will not decide tonight and the issue will come back. Councilmember Oddie concurred; stated that he is sure Council can come to an agreement on the matter at the next meeting. The Community Development Director stated the next item staff heard consensus on would prevent landlords from raising rents more than one time in a year. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support. Mayor Spencer stated there is consensus on said issue. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the vote is five in favor, to which Mayor Spencer responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-15,27,"billion; the Governor is proposing an insurance surcharge on home premiums in order to pay for emergency response and is looking at increasing booking fees to help raise $1 billion for fire protection; Councilmembers throughout the cities have urged their legislative delegation not to take any more redevelopment money. (10-306) Mayor Johnson inquired when the vehicle parking ordinance is coming back to Council, to which the Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded at a meeting in July. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:11 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf CityCouncil,2006-06-20,27,"The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded a consultant would be hired to prepare an update to the existing ADA Transition Plan; City staff would need to coordinate efforts. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated she is not sure whether a full time person is needed to work with an outside consultant. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the position would do other risk assessments that might preclude the City from spending money on outside counsel when sued. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative; stated the past Administrative Management Analyst position assists the Risk Manager, reviews and investigated all claims, and makes recommendations. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how many employees are in Risk Management, to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded two full-time positions Risk Manager and support staff. The City Manager/Executive Director stated updating the ADA Transition Plan is very staff intensive. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the job responsibility would include claim review. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative; stated some safety services could be reinstated. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what type of safety services would be reinstated. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded a safety committee would review workplace safety with the intent to reduce workplace injuries. The City Manager/Executive Director stated the person would work in a pro-active mode rather than reacting to claims. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether another department could handle the work. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative; Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 13 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,27,"Full Name Zip code Email Signature Rhee Chen 9460 BALARYYASIGAL Rio Lao 95127 Shak@hotmail.com the 8499 keybya@yahoo.com M 94607 Philip Bernasek 94501 pbernaseke@gmail.com Puly Benned Jennifer Lau 94608 jenlan4@gmail.com Lift Cora Luben 8mail. 94501 Coraluber 6220 -can manny Abellon 94606 EAbellon 12010 yoh 12 Jenna 94612 jensta27@gmail.com IN KEENIN 94606 namer Siena Ramirez 94612 Sans papey MichaelLy 94612 Molelfr Jhoses GARCIA 94580 Jisi Brian Middles 94612 Moneslder, middle55egmail.com Brandon 94608 del manday 2465$ can Tran 94519 th Jean Lee 94501 Jean Bhotnailicational MICHAL SKB 94158 Ch klood xixixal @ genmilson John Santas 94501 jsanto915@gmail can go P",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-21,27,"Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for reaching a consensus and consistency for the spelling of DePave Park; stated that she would like to have a discussion around Buildings 25 and 29; she would like to confirm that Council is not agreeing to demolish either building in approving the grant funding. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is approving a resolution to allow the City to apply for a grant. The Recreation and Parks Director stated Buildings 25 and 29 will be a major topic of discussion for the DePave Park Master Plan process, which would be funded by the grant if awarded. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for an eventual new name for DePave Park. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (21-595) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXIV Public Health to Add Section 24-14 Prohibition on Gasoline-Powered Leaf Blowers. Introduced. The City Planner gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City is still using gasoline powered leaf blowers. The City Planner responded in the negative; stated City contractors are not using gasoline powered leaf blowers. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she received a complaint about City contractors using gasoline powered leaf blowers at a park; requested clarification about the use for City contractors. The City Manager stated the City is converting from gasoline powered leaf blowers to electric; contracts are being converted to be consistent with the ordinance. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she supports the matter; she hopes the City will finish the conversion of contractors; the City should be the leader in such matters. Vice Mayor Vella moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that he plans to support the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 2021 23",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf CityCouncil,2018-04-17,27,"Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to see fiscal impact information, the comprehensive list of comments from the outreach, and, if possible, a survey of the people who go off island for a minimum wage job. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that is not part of the motion. Mayor Spencer stated that she made the comments earlier; many people included in the outreach groups do not earn minimum wage; it is important to hear their voices. The Acting City Manager stated the more outreach staff does, the longer it will take to bring the item back to Council. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like some kind of intentional outreach for folks earning minimum wage. Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of calling the question. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. On the call for the question on the original motion, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (18-239) The Acting City Manager announced the City and the School District will be hosting an event called In the Mix on Saturday, April 28th at the Island High School from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (18-240) Update on Tracking of Council Direction through the Referral Process. (18-241) Consider Directing Staff to Return with a Sanctuary City Contracting and Investment Ordinance. (Vice Mayor Vella) Vice Mayor Vella made brief comments regarding the referral. Urged Council to adopt an ordinance and make a stand tonight; stated there is a need Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 April 17, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-17.pdf CityCouncil,2008-10-07,27,"Chair Johnson requested that language be added that if DE Shaw terminates SunCal for reasons insufficient for our ENA, it doesn't affect the relationship between the ARRA and SunCal. Ms. Potter explained that if SunCal is terminated for cause, the ARRA has the opportunity to approve a replacement. The path forward under either scenario would be approval of replacement, or termination if DE Shaw did something contrary to ENA. Member deHaan expressed deep concern with this issue in general. He discussed that SunCal was selected because they had multimillion dollar background. He was uncomfortable that SunCal had to get a hedge fund partner to tie them over to get through the ENA. Because he has no in-depth knowledge of the company, Member deHaan requested a financial consultant prepare a fiscal evaluation of DE Shaw and their capability to weather the storm for this project. Member Tam stated that it is clear that there have been extraordinary events in financial market, and a solvent financial partner is difficult to find. Comparing Alameda to Mare Island (Lennar) she said we have the safeguards in place, and if DE Shaw jettisons SunCal, the deal would be off and we're not absorbing any fallout or cost. In response to Member deHaan's request, Ms. Potter explained that DE Shaw had submitted their financial information to our consultant, EPS, who analyzed the data and determined that DE Shaw could take on the financial obligations of ENA. Ms. Freilich further discussed DE Shaw, stating that they have $36 billion under management and $1.8 billion in real estate. They began 20 years ago as hedgefund in global and technology, with 10 different asset classes, and have hired an experienced team to do real estate acquisitions. DE Shaw acknowledges that it is a difficult real estate market, but that they've done extensive due diligence at Alameda Point, which they view as a unique and irreplaceable opportunity. SunCal is thrilled to have a partner with the capacity and ability that DE Shaw has, and they understand the goal of tightening up the milestones, and remain a committed partner in producing the DDA. Member deHaan asked if SunCal was in such dire straits that $10m was difficult for them to invest without a financial partner. Ms. Freilich explained that because the markets have changed, lines of credit are not available under the same terms. From SunCal's standpoint, partnering with DE Shaw provides stability to the project rather than the opposite. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 8 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-06-15,27,"In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding San Francisco, Mr. Penn stated San Francisco law enforcement handles 5150 calls. Mr. Gilbert stated the Fire Department responds to situation requiring care. Vice Mayor Vella inquired how Dispatch and calls to the non-emergency line would work under the Fire Forward model; requested the Fire Department to address how the model would address Police involvement. The Interim Fire Chief responded the Fire Forward model is designed to respond without Police in most instances; stated in a instance where there could be potential for violence, the Police would be needed; many responses do not require Police; Fire is already a first responder; the Fire Department has its own Dispatch Center; 911 calls initially go through the Police Department Dispatch Center; calls for Fire response are transferred. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired who would make the determination about a non-violent, non-combative, behavioral health emergency for a client that does not need to be restrained or have a medical complaint. The Interim Fire Chief responded it is typically decided at the answer point; stated when a call comes in, the Police Dispatch would decide whether to transfer the call to the Fire Dispatch Center. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Fire Department would not be involved in the decision since the Dispatch Center makes the determination, to which the Interim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed appreciation; stated that she plans to support the first responders; the Fire Department already has relationships and is in the community all the time. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of supporting Option 1 [Fire Department Fire Forward Response Pilot]. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she has a question about calls to the non-emergency line that resulted in two high profile incidents; her frustration is Council has asked to know how the Dispatch process is going to be addressed; the City can move to Option 1 or 2, but she is very concerned about how Dispatch decisions will be made to ensure there is a non-Police response; outside of whatever selection is made, she is looking for something from the City Manager relative to addressing the overall process for dispatching. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2021 18",CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-02,27,"Mayor Spencer stated Council was told in rent controlled city, when evicting for no cause rent cannot increase for the next tenant, per the Civil Code section. The Assistant City Attorney responded that the Council has the discretion to set the 5% cap. Mayor Spencer inquired what the Code section refers to. The Assistant City Attorney responded it refers to a different issue. Mayor Spencer stated it is not about evicting someone and then raising the rent as much as a landlord wants for a no cause eviction. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated both sides of the issue have to be addressed; she supports allowing no cause evictions and agrees to the 5% cap. Councilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with the 5% cap. Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with the 5% cap. The Community Development Director requested direction from Council on the cap for the number of allowable no cause evictions. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the City would allow property owners to evict all tenants without a CIP. The Community Development Director responded the City is trying to prevent doing so; stated direction on a cap is needed; if a landlord needs to do substantial rehabilitation, they would need to go through the CIP process. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the cap is to prevent a housing provider from doing a mass no cause eviction, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff is recommending 25% for buildings with 5 or more units and buildings with 4 or fewer units, could do 1 no cause eviction a year. Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff recommendation. Councilmember Daysog inquired if this was a tool to prevent Harbor Island from happening again, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he would support the recommendation for buildings with 10 or 20 more units; the City has not had a problem with the smaller buildings. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese is okay with mass evictions for Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2020-07-21,27,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for extra time spent to have an application process; stated many people might be interested; it is an important opportunity to be inclusive. The Recreation and Parks Director stated anyone interested in serving on the committee may email: arpd@alamedaca.gov. Councilmember Vella inquired whether Vice Mayor Knox White would like an amendment made to the motion that there be additional direction added for staff to look at ways to use the space of the signage to allow for artistic opportunities. Vice Mayor Knox White responded that he welcomes the addition; noted that he offered the statement as feedback; expressed support for the language being added to the motion, should there be support. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is no funding being allocated to do so. Councilmember Vella stated there is a Public Art in City Hall program; noted staff can look into opportunities for different uses of the space; amended the motion to include direction to staff to look at ways to use the park signage space. Councilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion. The Recreation and Parks Director stated the sign will be removed as soon as possible; noted the sign is made of solid concrete. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. *** Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft recessed the meeting at 9:50 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:06 p.m. *** (20-540) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Execute a One Year License with Greenway Golf Associates, Inc. for the ""Grandview Pavilion"" Located at 300 Island Drive, including an Option to Extend the Term of the License for One Additional Year. The City Manager gave a brief presentation. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there should be a clause requiring Greenway to comply with any applicable COVID-19 restrictions when holding events at the City- owned property with consequences for failure to comply. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 5 July 21, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-01,27,"ORAL REPORTS (ARRA) Oral report from Member Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative - Highlights of May 6 Alameda Point RAB Meeting Board Member Matarrese stated the Navy is nearing completion of the replacement and removal of several radio active storm drain lines that go from Buildings 5 and 400 to the seaplane lagoon; requested clarification on whether the new storm drains would meet current standards; stated a number of remediation are in place; nearly 75% completion of characterization is being approached; part of the clean up plan includes the former Todd Shipyard near the existing ferry terminal where copper is being removed, which is not all Navy contamination, but the Navy is paying for it. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 16 Community Improvement Commission June 1, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf CityCouncil,2018-03-06,27,"Commission. Mayor Spencer nominated Elizabeth Rush. (18-138) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended a summit meeting on homelessness and encampments in Alameda County; she will share some ideas with staff. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:11 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 March 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-03-06.pdf CityCouncil,2005-05-17,27,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether residents are required to pay for sidewalk repair, to which the Public Works Director responded the City only repairs sidewalks damaged by street trees. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry about sewers, the Public Works Director responded the City's sewers are doing fairly well because there is a dedicated funding source; dedicated funding sources or fees would allow the City to keep up with on-going maintenance. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Measure B funds were used for the pothole crew, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding Measure B funds being a fixed amount, the Public Works Director stated the amount varies because it is based on sales tax. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the pothole crew defers the need for maintenance, to which the Public Works Director responded resurfacing is still often needed. Councilmember Daysog stated little changes can change people's perception; people think negatively of their surroundings if streets and sidewalks are not maintained; people might have confidence the City is on the right track if improvements cannot be fully funded but common areas are improved. Mayor Johnson stated not dealing with the problem creates a bigger deficit; the Council needs to review the issue; a long-term plan is needed to get infrastructure back in shape. Councilmember Matarrese stated the sewer system is in good shape because it has a dedicated funding source; a similar option for streets, sidewalks, and median strips should be presented to the public; other funding sources will not solve the problem. The Acting City Manager stated the presentation was the first step to identify the problem; the next step is to find ways to fund improvements; having something similar to the sewer fund would be good. Mayor Johnson stated the City must be able to assure the public that a thorough review was completed and there is not any money available in the budget before raising fees; the deficit is huge. Councilmember deHaan stated the most important thing is to set up a Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf CityCouncil,2008-06-17,27,"levels is difficult, let alone adding additional staff; contractual agreements cannot be made unless there is revenue in hand. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether hiring people is a contractual obligation; stated people can be layed off; the Fire Chief mentioned that two to three positions per shift should be added; more information is needed; enough direction has been given to the City Manager/Executive Director to approve numbers provided tonight trees need to be addressed so that further liability is not incurred; plenty of notice needs to be given before spending down the $300,000 of overtime; some matching fund capability needs to be left to provide an incentive to the Museum; information has been requested regarding setting up a trust this year for unfunded post employment benefits. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what agreement has been arrived at regarding trees. The Public Works Director responded Zone 4 will commence July 1; Mr. Buckley suggested not pruning specific species at all, which does not make sense; structural pruning will be performed; left over money will be applied to new street tree planning. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the process would equate to manpower. The Public Works Director responded the tree crew would be reduced by a Maintenance Worker I and a Team Leader; stated $50,000 has been added to the Consultant Contract. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated some of the work would be outsourced. The Public Works Director stated all mature tree pruning is done by an outside contractori currently, emergency response to down limbs, some new tree planting, and young tree pruning is done in house; emergency removal of down limbs and young tree pruning is being proposed to be done by existing contractor. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated time would be provided if the Golf Return on Investment (ROI) and surcharge were not rebated and put into the General Fund; the money would be able to fund Fire Department overtime and not take a truck out of service. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the projected Golf Course deficit is Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 17 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf CityCouncil,2010-05-04,27,"Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community 10 Improvement Commission May 4, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf CityCouncil,2006-09-05,27,"that all pay increases be projected also. The Development Services Director requested a timeframe for the applicant to submit the information. Chair Johnson stated three weeks is a generous amount of time. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion. The Executive Director requested clarification about the request for verification of the dependent; stated staff accepted the dependent as a family member. Chair Johnson stated whatever is acceptable to the Internal Revenue Service. The Development Services Director stated that the fifth member does not have to be a dependent and only has to be part of the family unit. Commissioner Matarrese restated the motion is that the Rutledge's are required to provide a letter from the appropriate authority at the Social Security Office stating that there would be no overtime from October 1, 2006 through the end of March 2007; that all reportable income from Peralta College and any other source be factored in; and all documentation needs to be submitted by September 30, 2006. Commissioner Gilmore stated Commissioner deHaan requested that motion include salary increases be projected forward if trainee status changes and there is an increase. Commissioner deHaan requested that the motion be modified to require the Social Security Administration to provide its overtime policy and [overtime] percentage projection. Chair Johnson stated there needs to be a statement that there is or is not [overtime] income. Commissioner Matarrese stated the motion includes receiving a letter indicating that there would be no overtime. The Executive Director clarified that the process was to resolve the appeal, not to set a precedent for future evaluations. Commissioner Matarrese stated a process is not being established; information is being gathered to adjudicate the appeal. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 8 September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,27,"A sampling of the types of community uses this project could make available. Events BenefitsAnnual Neptune Beach Summer Festival Educational Benefits Annual Halloween Haunted House Weekly Historic Tours Annual December Tree Lighting Event (participation / support) Ongoing Educational Programming (Youth and Adult) Annual December Arts & Craft Gift Show Youth Summer Camps Chinese New Year Festivities Youth After-school Programs Summer Outdoor Theater Events Art Therapy and Special Ed Programs Non-Paid City Events (12 per year included, others on request) Alameda High School Community Access Television 36 Discount Community Events (others on request when available) School Dances and Proms Economic Benefits School Graduation Ceremonies Bat and Bar Mitzvahs, Confirmations, and other ceremonies Networking Quinceañeras Skills, Knowledge, and Business Development Weddings and Birthdays Entrepreneurial Coaching and Courses Corporate Events and Year-end Parties Professional Internships Public Town Halls and Meetings Career Pathway Development Open Mic Nights Idea and Start Up Incubation Karaoke Nights Kickstarter Launchpad Live Music Events Youtube Content Producer Channel Recording Suites Live Theatrical Productions Audio and Video Recording Suites Immersive Theater Experiences Dress-up Dinner Theater Shows Drive-in Shakespeare And More Please help us grow this list",RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2017-04-12,27,"ITEM 2-B COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES MEETING MINUTES OF Wednesday, April 12, 2017 6:30 p.m. going to do it whether we do or not, I'm sure. But it just sounds like it would be better if it came from us. Beth Kenny: It does come from us. Arnold Brillinger: Okay. Beth Kenny: It does and Jody was interested in doing it, and so I made the decision to have her go ahead and accept it on behalf, as a former commissioner of the Commission on Disability. Arnold Brillinger: Okay. No problem. Kerry Parker: That raises a great point. I do know that Tony was interested last year in having a proclamation for White Cane Day. Beth Kenny: Yes. White Cane Month which is also October. Kerry Parker: Or month, which is also October, but we could include that in a proclamation language. That gets in front of me every year, ""Is this what you want to say?"" And I looked at the proclamation for Autism Awareness Month, as well. So if anyone wanted to take up the cause of If there is any proclamations we would like in council, that's something that needs to be written, scheduled, approved. Submit something to me, and I can look at what that schedule would look like. They're not going to want a whole waterfall of proclamations, but if we spaced them out thoughtfully we could certainly do that. Beth Kenny: Yes, and also in October, we do have a proclamation that the city does annually for Disability Employment Awareness Month which we can share the language with that with the commission. Maybe we can send that out to everybody? Does anyone else have any announcements they'd like to make? Arnold Brillinger: Well, I'm not necessarily anyone else, but [chuckle] I just wanted to say, that I think that Beth suggested to the Transportation group in Mastick, that I be on the committee that is looking at the new contracts for the next four years for which provider to use. So, we've got our work set out for us. We've got six different proposals from companies. I just want to say that Victoria Williams who was here at our last meeting is working on the shuttle which is the Alameda Loop. That's their new name that they've decided on. I've even got posters on the sides on my wheelchair and stuff. ""Ride the Free Alameda Shuttle"" or ""Ride the Free Loop"" and things like that. People come up and they say, ""What is that?' because they think I'm giving free rides on my wheelchair. [chuckle] Arnold Brillinger: I said, no. It's this bus that comes around here on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, that no one really seems to see because it just blends in with everything else. At the last meeting, we suggested that they do a like a bus wrap. Getting the word, ""free"" on it. Making it colorful and so it stands out. Whatever. Myself, I've just taken it around a couple times. I went on the loop that goes out to Alameda Landing and that area. The Westside, I believe. And like I reported to 05/24/17 Page 27 of 29",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2017-04-12.pdf CityCouncil,2020-06-16,27,"Councilmember Daysog expressed support for having further conversations related to the way special meetings are processed and conducted and for receiving input from the OGC. Councilmember Vella expressed support for notifying as many people across platforms with as much notice possible regarding special meetings; stated media noticing is defined specifically; due to COVID, meetings have been noticed in a different way. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there will be different noticing standards for special and regular Council meetings. Councilmember Vella responded in the negative; stated both regular and special meeting noticing could be the same. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated this is the new normal; Council must ensure the rules which govern Council are kept up to date with changing times. Councilmember Vella moved approval of incorporating Council comments and for staff to bring the matter to the OGC for input, keeping in mind Council comments and direction. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the item includes Charter language or whether the item is being presented in a broader form. Councilmember Vella responded the matter is being presented in a broader form, while incorporating Council comments; noted that the matter should return to Council for discussion and action. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council June 16, 2020 2",CityCouncil/2020-06-16.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-05,27,"funding; the issue is cash flow; expressed support for sole proprietors. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like more information provided on the Great Plates program. The City Manager stated Great Plates is another way to help restaurants; staff supports looking into the program. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the program is for middle income seniors in need of meals. The City Manager stated there are about four programs within the community which provide meals to seniors; expressed concern about using the program and staff resources; noted the program requires an implementation plan; expressed support for using gofundme.com; expressed concern about the lack of regulation with gofundme.com; stated that he would like to ensure those donating understand donations will be used towards the cause; foundations and municipal trust options could be funding sources as well. Vice Mayor Knox White discussed the Meals on Wheels program; stated there is a huge need for assistance; noted a partnership with Meals on Wheels could be explored. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff has received sufficient direction. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Council can provide additional direction, but is not required to do so; Council may take a vote on any specific action, but a motion is not required. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the City Manager has received direction and plans to investigate and report back at the next meeting on steps that can be taken for the Great Plates program and additional funding; expressed support for $300,000 and supporting the public-private partnership with the City Attorney's input and the City Manager's agreement. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City Manager is keeping a close eye on the City's finances to come back with an amount; expressed support for all three approaches provided by the City Manager. Councilmember Vella stated Meals on Wheels and the senior meal delivery at Mastick Senior Center have increased delivery; the demand has gone up; expressed support for the programs to be run through or coordinated with an existing program or partnership; expressed concern about duplication of resources and staffing. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Great Plates program signs up participating restaurants; the restaurants have criteria to meet from the Department of Agriculture and nutrition standards; the restaurants provide delivery with staff that has been through a background check; the City is not involved in the delivery, but would be involved with Special Meeting Alameda City Council 6 April 21, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-05.pdf CityCouncil,2022-02-15,27,"The Recreation and Parks Director responded that she has enough information to proceed; stated staff will continue to meet with the ASPA Board of Directors. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is critical that the City work with ASPA and have ASPA be the leader in the matter. (22-120) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXX to Implement Senate Bill 9 Regarding Two-Unit Housing Developments and Urban Lot Splits in Single-Family Residential Zones. Continued to March 1, 2022. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Not heard. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Not heard. COUNCIL REFERRALS (22-121) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (22-122) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (22-123) Consider Directing Staff to Bring the Rent Program ""In-House"" to the City Attorney's Office. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Vella) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Not heard. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:44 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 15, 2022 25",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf CityCouncil,2009-10-20,27,"Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a developer could request additional units [above the limit] because less money would be made on smaller units. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated a developer does not get extra units under State law; State law has certain absolutes the ordinance provides an application process if a developer requests an incentive, concession, or waiver; the matter would be presented to the Planning Board; the Planning Board would have to make certain findings if the incentive, concession, or waiver is denied. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the ordinance should be amended to include comments. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the Collin's plan did not have setbacks; that he is interested in reviewing the new plan. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated projects would still have to go through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process even with a density bonus, concession, or waiver request; part of the CEQA process could be preferred alternatives. In response to Councilmember/Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated State density bonus law pre-empts local agency zoning and development regulations and is specifically applicable to Charter cities; the State density bonus law trumps the City's Measure A requirements; developing a City density bonus ordinance allows the City to articulate a multi-family configuration prohibited under Measure A as a waiver, not a concessioni the findings are more stringent for a waiver. Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents: (In favor of ordinance) : Jamie Keating, Trailhead Ventures, LLC; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) ; Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) . Opponents (Not in favor or ordinance) : Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr; Patsy Paul, Alameda. ; Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society; Corinne Lambden, Alameda; There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Following Former Councilmember Kerr's comments, Mayor/Chair Johnson Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-20,26,"needs. (21-504) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider remaining items; suggested hearing the Police Policies [paragraph no. 21-505], Public Art Ordinance [paragraph no. 21-508 and Sunshine Ordinance Amendments [paragraph no. 21-509 with ending by 12:00 a.m. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Mayor's suggestion. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. The City Manager recommended staff bring back a program which contains a combination of Options 1 and 2; stated Council's focus is on housing; Option 1 has a focus on matters such as broadband and infrastructure; the revenue loss can be used towards the housing portion; staff can narrow the broadband portion to include some of the elements discussed by Council. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is supportive of the wireless hotspots; expressed concern about the broadband project being placed ahead of the Smart City Master Plan; stated that he would like to know more about the project as opposed to putting in broadband with the hopes of connecting street traffic lights; the broadband option is not what he has in mind for a big and impactful project. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether it is possible to obtain more information from staff related to the percentage of the population that does not have internet access; stated that she feels the matter is important and the need is great. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would prefer Council pursue the matter in the manner recommended by the City Manager; she is mindful of Councilmember Knox White's concerns about getting too far from the Smart City Master Plan; there are other ways to fund the project, including a possible upcoming infrastructure bill. Councilmember Knox White stated that he has been part of weekly meetings over the summer with AUSD; the numbers are not huge; the matter is not going to be solved by infrastructure-specific projects; there are needs for one household connections from people as opposed to giant backbones of infrastructure; the matter has not moved forward due to AUSD handing out hotspots to families in need; the hotspot proposal builds on the AUSD program; as the City moves through the Smart City Master Plan, the City can plug in what is learned. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated seniors are also in need; noted many are not participating in the virtual meetings; questioned whether Mastick Senior Center can help Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 19",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-24,26,"Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmembers Matarrese and Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for not changing the cap at this time. Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff is going to ask about deliveries. The Economic Development responded that she could do so; stated a delivery only dispensary, without a retail location, could be one of the two dispensaries. Vice Mayor Vella suggested that two delivery only licenses be allowed in addition to the two dispensaries, separate from the existing dispensary cap. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the dispersion requirement would not apply to delivery only, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated said suggestion is responsive to residents in need of medicinal marijuana who cannot get to dispensaries. Vice Mayor Vella stated allowing the use would attempt to get people to have a legal delivery service. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft is agreeable to have two delivery only businesses, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese is agreeable, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the negative. Councilmember Oddie stated that he would be agreeable; he would also like the City to require a license for delivery services. Mayor Spencer stated four Councilmembers support two delivery only businesses; inquired whether delivery businesses outside the City should be required to get a license. The Economic Development Manager inquired whether Council is okay not having a dispersion requirement for the delivery only businesses, to which Mayor Spencer, Vice Mayor Vella, Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested staff review having delivery only businesses located in a business park. Mayor Spencer stated the matter would be addressed when it returns to Council. The Economic Development Manager stated regarding delivery licenses, staff is looking into allowing anyone with a legitimate business to get a business license in Alameda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf CityCouncil,2012-06-19,26,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -JUNE 19, 2012- - 6:00 P.M. Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:01 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 5. [Note: Councilmember Johnson arrived at 6:07 p.m. and Vice Mayor Bonta arrived at 6:10 p.m.] Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (12-300) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95); Claimant: David Ellis; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda (12-301) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; (54956.9) Name of Case: Robert Zack, Bernice Jolliff, The Estate of Raymond Zack VS. City of Alameda, County of Alameda, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Superior Court of California, Alameda County; Case No. RG12632015; this lawsuit stems from the tragic drowning of Raymond Zack at Crown Beach in May 2011. Family members are seeking un specified monetary damages. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore announced that regarding Workers' Compensation Claim, the Council gave direction to staff; and regarding Existing Litigation, Council gave direction to staff. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf CityCouncil,2019-03-19,26,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the reasoning for a two-year term for the Permit Tech III position. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded permits are up and the permit counter is busy; stated since the Planning department is fee-based, the position is limited to a two-year term; an assessment will be made to determine if more time is needed. Councilmember Vella inquired whether an accounting of time is being conducted on plan check and review. The Planning, Building and Transportation director responded even though permits are up, the overall number is down; stated streamline procedures are being implemented; design review exemptions to cut down steps and time, which has increased work at the counter, resulting in the new needed position. The Human Resources Director continued the presentation. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the focus of the new Transportation position will change. The Public Works Director responded the Supervising Civil Engineer will be a licensed transportation engineer and will improve the ability of the Transportation department as a whole. The Finance Director completed the presentation. Councilmember Oddie expressed concern over the previous five years of revenues being significantly higher than estimated, and expenses coming in lower than estimated; stated some of the increased assessed value is due to increased market value, but some can be attributed to City departments providing services; it is critical to keep services running in order to maintain high standards of living; stated that he will support the resolutions; he would like to see line items for festival and parade events sooner than later. The Recreation and Parks Director stated funding has been identified in the non- departmental contingency fund for the upcoming July 4th parade and has been provided for the next budget cycle. Councilmember Vella stated the mid-year budget comes several months into the year; that she would prefer the report be provided earlier in the year if possible; expressed support for the budget requests; stated the pool repair costs need to be realized in order to keep Emma Hood Swim Center open and functioning; the City should continue to pay down the CalPERS liability; she would like to know where revenues are under estimated and expenses are overestimated and would like to know where the mark is being Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf GolfCommission,2018-02-15,26,"Corica Golf 2018 PREVIEW Annual Plan Key Management Positions: Plans are in development to further elevate efforts on creating fun entertainment experiences at the Club. In support of this golf management positons are being restructured with additional new positions added. These include: Director of Fun (aka Dir. of Golf) - Position will serve as the senior onsite golf operations manager and ensure all services and products are delivered to expected standards while being a relentless promotor of fun. Event Director - A dedicated position is being created to focus on sales and service of outings and special events. This will be a full-time position to assist in the planning of all service clubs, outings & tournaments. Guest Services Manager - This position will serve as assistant to the Dir. of Fun and focus on guest service training with all staff and implementation of service standards and premiere packages. Marketing Manager - Will focus on social media & marketing of programs. 22",GolfCommission/2018-02-15.pdf CityCouncil,2022-03-01,26,"(22-154) Consider Directing Staff to Bring the Rent Program ""In-House"" to the City Attorney's Office. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Vella) Not heard. (22-155) Consider Adoption of Resolution Expressing Support for the ""Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use Initiative"" to Amend Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California to Make Zoning and Land Use Community Affairs, and Not of State Interest. Withdrawn and not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (22-156) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed the Point in Time Count. (22-157) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the Point in Time Count, a Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Enforcement Committee meeting discussion related to abandoned vessels in the estuary, a joint meeting of the Alameda County Mayors and the Board of Supervisors to address homelessness, an interview held with consultants working on the three year strategic plan for Alameda Health Systems and a meeting of the City Council and Alameda Health Care District subcommittee. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2022 24",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf CityCouncil,2019-07-16,26,"visit to Building 8 at Alameda Point with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; expressed support for Alameda Point Partners (APP) to get the job done. Councilmember Daysog stated the process worked; Jamestown fell by the wayside; APP is a developer that has proven itself; outlined APP's accomplishments; expressed support for moving forward with staff's recommendation in selecting APP. Vice Mayor Knox White stated two developers were chosen in January; expressed support for APP's ability to deliver. Councilmember Vella expressed concern for the response from APP to ensuring the affordable units are able to come online with no delays; for the timing of different units coming onto the market and the total number of units; inquired the number of units being delivered at a given time. Mr. Ernst responded there could be concern with too many of the same type of units being delivered at any given time; stated understanding Phases 1 and 2 of Site A will give the ability to manage the product type for West Midway and not cause competition which would jeopardize the project. Councilmember Vella inquired the plan for the number of units for West Midway. Mr. Dorfman responded there are 3 different product types in concept: rental community, townhomes and single family; stated the highest density multi-family component would be the largest, followed by townhomes and then single-family homes would be the fewest; the single-family homes will be sold off to third party developers; townhomes are being introduced to Trumark development; he is not concerned about cannibalizing. Councilmember Vella inquired whether Trumark will be working with APP on the project. Mr. Dorfman responded in the affirmative; stated Brookfield might as well. Mr. Ernst stated APP can manage the product types in order to prevent competition or jeopardize the two projects. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the applicants have experience with the infrastructure; outlined a groundbreaking event for the first residential construction of senior affordable housing at Alameda Point, which she attended with Councilmember Oddie; stated the multi-family affordable housing is set to follow; Council has a commitment to do the right thing, but good partners are required; expressed support for selecting APP to be the development team for the West Midway project. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether one or two motions are needed to select a development team for the West Midway Project and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement (ENA) with the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf CityCouncil,2015-01-21,26,"extra meetings, such as an open house; suggested tackling the most important matters first. Discussed the election results and the prior Council; stated creating a welcoming atmosphere is important; that she would not suggest adhering to Roberts Rules of Order; stated meetings should not be scheduled with the public input at 11:00 p.m.: Elizabeth Tuckwell, Alameda. Mayor Spencer stated the meeting is achieving her goal; she loves having members of the public tell the Council what is working and not working and how the Council can best serve the public's needs; that she appreciates that Councilmembers can follow up with referrals and have an opportunity to work with staff more closely; it was not known that additional items would be continued to tonight when the special meeting was called; the meeting has gone beyond the intended time. Councilmember Oddie expressed concern over the meeting turning into a session to criticize the former Council; stated the City needs to move forward; the election is over; how meetings are run and speakers are called is the Mayor's prerogative; the Council could discuss the items in the report. Mayor Spencer stated the intent is being taken out of context; that she always welcomes public participation; the meeting has been very productive for her. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft provided an example of her daughter working with people from other countries risking their lives to participate in the democratic processes; read from the Sunshine Ordinance regarding access to government; stated the benefits of a democratic society are taken for granted; expressed concern over criticizing past Councils; stated Councilmembers are doing the people's business and should do so in the best way possible. Mayor Spencer stated it was not disrespectful to call the meeting; the meeting was called to discuss the items and that is what has occurred. Councilmember Daysog stated the intent of the workshop is right on; it is about letting people understand the way in which government works and opening the doors of City Hall even wider; the intent is noble; that he is fine with the way the Council does things. Councilmember Oddie stated that he did not state holding the meeting is disrespectful; concurred with Councilmember Daysog that the Council is doing fine but Councilmembers should feel free to raise suggestions; sharing the information was valuable. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the election is over; moving forward is important and sends the message that the Council is here to work; if Council wants to consider having an open house, there should be a vote and consideration for staff; stated the longer the time between when a motion is made and the second occurs, the motion might get Special Meeting Alameda City Council 26 January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf CityCouncil,2021-10-19,26,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the matter would return to Council next. The City Manager responded staff can hold a workshop in the following months to continue the educational period; staff will perform other steps during the four to six months in order to prepare Council to make a decision. Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the validation process included in the presentation is accurate, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Knox White noted sometime between now and next February, there will be a workshop; inquired whether the matter will come to many meetings in March and April and Council approval is set for May or June. Mr. Morales responded the assessment is correct. Councilmember Knox White stated that he has been doom and gloom on the economy for some time; he is happy to be proven wrong; if Council wishes to take advantage of the POB, the advantage should be taken earlier, rather than later; bond rates will likely only go up; every month of waiting is a month of increased rates; the concerns raised are reasonable; expressed support for Councilmember Daysog requesting UFI's staff bona fides; stated the City Auditor and Treasurer will provide input and recommendations; the City Auditor and Treasurer have both expressed support for moving forward to start the conversation. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the resolution] with direction to ensure there are two workshops, not Council meetings, between now and the first Council approval whereby the City can have Mr. Morales and City staff give a presentation and have a deep discussion with Council and the community. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated Council owes the City and constituents a conversation to explore the option; the experts have said now is the time to have the discussion based on bond ratings; other jurisdictions have done so at less opportune moments; she does not want to be in a situation where Council is making decisions out of desperation; she wants to be in a position to make decisions based off the best possible set of facts, knowing that Council is acting in a fiscally responsible manner; doing nothing is fiscally irresponsible; expressed support for taking a step forward in giving direction to return to Council to look at POBs as an option, allowing for a vetting process, the chance for people to weigh-in to have a work session and for Council to make an informed decision about whether a POB is the right thing at the right time for the City; the matter does not exclude the ability to look at other options and parallel tracks; Council must ensure the City is put in a financial position that is responsible; she has not heard the City Auditor or Treasurer oppose exploring the possibility of a POB; the timeline provides the opportunity for full vetting; expressed support for moving forward; stated doing nothing will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and will create an even bigger problem; she hopes the City can take a positive step forward. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important that Council considers steps to ensure the City is not creating more liability in moving forward; expressed support for moving forward carefully; stated that she would like staff to explore ways to minimize getting further into debt; inquired whether Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf CityCouncil,2021-03-16,26,"Councilmember Knox White restated the motion: [Steering Committee Item] 1: reaffirm the number of APD authorized Officers is 88, [Steering Committee Item] 3: create a Code of Conduct for sworn Officers as described, and [Steering Committee Item] 4: hire a Crime Analyst; and providing direction that if staff can find ways to support a Know Your Rights training within Alameda, Council would be supportive; and requesting a report back on how many Officers have been trained as part of the DA's training on detentions, which could be off agenda and does not have to be at a meeting. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Council is asking for staff to come back to Council about how a Code of Conduct could be pursued, such as within the existing document or as the separate document the Committee discussed or as something else; inquired what is expected. Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated as long as both models are consistent with the Steering Committee's recommendation; the Steering Committee is saying the community should have some say in what Code of Conduct looks like; a corporation based out of Texas should not just be sending updates and saying this is the Code of Conduct. Councilmember Daysog stated staff is going to filter the concerns raised by the Committee and try to put together a document that hopefully works. Councilmember Knox White concurred. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees the Code of Conduct should not come out of Lexipol; she also believes members of the Police Department need to provide input; she does not want to create an adversarial process of us against the Police; we are all community partners; people doing the job need to be asked what they hold to be a high standard of conduct; she would welcome community and Council input as well; a group of civilians should not be telling Officers how to do their job. Councilmember Knox White stated the statements are 100% consistent with what he heard from the Steering Committee and the motion. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated if what she said matches the motion, she can support it. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has concerns regarding the Code of Conduct; the Oath of Office should be looked at; read the Oath; stated the document is strong and should be reviewed; she would like to hear from the Union regarding this item in particular; if the Police are being asked to do this, Council should be looking at all City departments. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the motion included the Know Your Rights training; discussion was it might be beyond what Council is trying to accomplish now. Councilmember Knox White stated that the motion was just to give staff direction that if Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2017-11-07,26,"Vice Mayor Vella stated her notes say there would be an option for a community benefit fund; stated other communities have had issues with the requirement not being enforceable. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is okay with leaving the language. The Community Development Director stated the language is in the ordinance for enforcement purposes; in the event someone volunteers to do something, it can be enforced. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the community benefit will be monitored and what the penalty will be if there is no follow through. The Assistant City Attorney responded the applicant's operator permit could be revoked. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will not support the local ownership and local hire provision. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft would be amenable to adding the wording ""if applicable."" Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what does ""if applicable"" mean. The Assistant City Attorney responded ""if applicable"" means if the applicant does not submit a voluntary plan or if the RFP process does not include community benefit, it would not be applicable. The Community Development Director stated the sentence could be eliminated and included in the resolution adopting the policies and guidelines. Mayor Spencer inquired whether that would mean to keep the language in now. The Community Development Director stated the language can be deleted and the concept included in the resolution. Mayor Spencer stated her preference is to keep the language in because it is the only place which mentions local hire and local ownership. Vice Mayor Vella stated onsite consumption language allows the Community Development Department (CDD) to promulgate guidelines, procedures and regulations; inquired whether language can be added after to have the RFP regulations approved by Council and developed by the CDD. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the language does not satisfy her request. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is any language which would satisfy Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 November 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf CityCouncil,2017-10-17,26,"event; stated in response to requests and concerns about air quality, the air matters app gives minute by minute air quality at airnow.gov. (17-640) Update on Tracking of Council Direction through the Referral Process. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (17-641) Councilmember Matarrese stated the Governor issued a state of emergency over an outbreak of Hepatitis A in San Diego from people living on the street. (17-642) Vice Mayor Vella inquired how lime bikes driven far of the Island will be retrieved; made an announcement regarding the upcoming Airport Noise Forum and AC Transit Inter-Agency Liaison Committee meeting. (17-643) Mayor Spencer expressed concern over lime bikes blocking sidewalks and traffic lanes; suggested staff put out information about where the bikes should be parked; announced the cannabis workshop will be held Saturday at 9:00 a.m.; noted a movie was screened at City Hall this past Saturday; outlined movies that have been shown. (17-644) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination to the Planning Board. Not heard. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-17.pdf CityCouncil,2021-05-04,26,"percentage of residential to commercial; there are a number of different factors covered extensively in previous Council meetings and also within the staff report; Council has expressed support for an ACI office in Alameda; expressed concern about cutting costs on the back of low wage workers; stated workers deserve a living wage and compensation that includes health care; she is not supportive if costs include a cost to switch vendors; Council has had an extensive conversation and she does not intend to change the direction at this point. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is looking to provide many things with the service, including compliance with new State law; it is especially important for Alameda to do the kinds of things that reduce waste and are environmentally friendly; Alameda is an Island and needs to take global warming seriously; some of the matters are going to cost more money, such as the eventual conversion to electric vehicles for the fleet; the change requires infrastructure and start-up costs; the value of the change must be weighed for what is received; staff was able to negotiate decent rates due to the possibility of an open process; the City is getting increased services, including bulk pick-up at multi-family dwellings; there will be less couches on curbs; the numbers for customer satisfaction are good; no service provider is perfect; she receives complaints about bins not being picked up from time to time and an immediate response is typical when reaching out to ACI; she receives the similar comments from AMP customers; she thinks ACI has been a good provider and workers are treated well; expressed support. Councilmember Knox White stated the process has been over one year with multiple check- ins; he appreciates the comments; expressed support for the matter based on solid work by staff and consultants; stated Council has asked a lot of the questions raised through the process; he is confident that staff has negotiated a solid deal; costs have been increasing due to dealing with the increase in trash; Consumer Price Index (CPI) is not the measure to be used in determining success. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the contract as proposed by City staff [including introduction of the ordinance]. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she encourages people to look over page nine of the presentation to see 11 cities paying significantly less than Alameda. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. (21-311) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Second Amendment to the Lease with Greenway Golf Associates, Inc., a California Corporation, for Chuck Corica Golf Complex to Adjust Lease Area to Include the Old Fire Training Tower. Not heard. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 May 4, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf CityCouncil,2020-06-02,26,"The City Clerk stated Council has provided previous direction to add the Mayor into the language related to Council interference. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of placing the item on the 2020 ballot. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Vella inquired whether Councilmember Daysog's request for a discreet number on Council pay was been part of the motion or whether staff will provide alternatives. Vice Mayor Knox White responded staff may present alternatives. Councilmember Daysog stated that he will support the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. The City Attorney requested direction be provided whether Council desires each ballot item to remain separate or combined specifically. *** (20-379) Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of allowing 15 more minutes for discussion. Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. *** Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for Section 7-3 and the City Prosecutor matters to stand alone as a ballot items. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of keeping the items separate on the ballot. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf CityCouncil,2022-02-01,26,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Council Priority Setting Workshop being held on a regular Council meeting date. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion. (22-092) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of adding ten more minutes to the meeting in order to finish the discussion; stated that he is not ready to vote on the matter; if time is not extended, the matter should be continued to another meeting; he will not provide any additional dates for the priority setting workshop until the discussion occurs. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. *** Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that he was enthusiastic about trying to have regular Council workshops; he understands Councilmembers have refused to consider dates on the weekends or other times; he is a the point where now he does not see value in holding a workshop; the current priorities still represent the priorities of the majority of Council; it is disappointing that a time could not be found due to inflexibility; he does not see any point in holding a workshop eight months prior to an election; he will not support the matter and will no longer submit times for workshops; there will not be any benefit to holding a workshop. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she shares frustrations about the scheduling difficulties experienced; some members have refused to meet on weekends, which causes disadvantages for those working jobs during the day; noted having a date where only four out of five Councilmembers meet defeats the purpose of the workshop. Councilmember Knox White stated that he has agreed to all but two of the proposed dates presented and attempted to be as flexible as possible. Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for comments; stated Councilmembers are volunteers and are not full-time; it is difficult for those with jobs to meet during the day on a weekday; workshops are publically agendized and open to the public; workshops set in the middle of the day disadvantages the public; workshops should be set at times which are accessible to the broader public; it is unfortunate; many Councilmembers have worked to set a date; her priorities have not shifted and housing is still a top priority. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated multiple dates have been suggested; she is not privy as to who accepted which dates; some Councilmembers do not fill out charts; she has provided her availability multiple times and has been available; the current discussion does not address the referral topic; her referral speaks to setting the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 1, 2022 26",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf CityCouncil,2022-05-03,26,"methodology being out of date: Donna Fletcher, Alameda. Discussed collective knowledge on the HE being shared; stated many people believe the HE is moving in the right direction and the City is being set up for success; expressed concern about correspondence; stated the City cannot risk entertaining the proposed concerns; the State will go after noncompliant cities: Zac Bowling, Alameda. Expressed support for the work being done on the HE; stated the City needs the numbers and distribution of housing units across the Island; Article 26 stands out like a sore thumb; cities have tried to get out of requirements; doubling down on Article 26 will likely not be effective: Josh Geyer, Alameda. Expressed support for a good faith effort in submitting a compliant HE; questioned how R-1 through R-6 zones can contribute more; urged Council to modify base zoning; expressed support for tall, modern buildings on Park and Webster Streets: Drew Dara- Abrams, Alameda. *** (22-315) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of continuing the current item and not hearing any more items. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is not needed to hear the current item. Councilmember Herrera Spencer withdrew her motion. Councilmember Knox White noted Council has two budget hearings in next week; questioned whether the revenue measures matter [paragraph no 22- ] can be continued to the budget session; expressed concern about discussing another item. Councilmember Knox White moved approval the revenue measures matter beginning continued to the May 10th budget session meeting. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the required vote to move the matter, to which the City Clerk responded three affirmative votes are needed. In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry the City Clerk stated the Rules require a vote to consider new matters after 11:00 p.m.; Council can complete the current discussion and address the agenda sections, including Oral Communications, City Manager Communications, and Council Communications without a vote; there is no time limit for hearing said agenda sections. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is not feeling well and supports only hearing the current matter. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 3, 2022 22",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-27,26,"Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (10-393 CC) Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on November 2, 2010, for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Repealing Article XXVII on Compulsory Arbitration for Firefighters; and Proposing Said Charter Amendment. Not adopted; (10-393A CC) Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on November 2, 2010, for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Adding Sections 3-20, 17-18 and 21-2 regarding Budget Authority of the City Manager and City Council; and Proposing Said Charter Amendments. Not adopted; and (10-393B CC) Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on November 2, 2010, for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Section 3-18 to Allow the City Clerk to Reject All Legal Advertising Bids; by Amending Section 10-3 to Add a Member to the Public Utilities Board and Convert the City Manager into a Nonvoting Member; By Amending Section 12-1(C) to Add Restrictions to Public Utilities Board Contracting; and By Repealing Section 22-8 Regarding the Hours of City Offices; and Proposing Said Charter Amendments. Not adopted. (City Attorney) The City Clerk and Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Tam stated that when she was on the Charter Subcommittee, thirty-two different amendments were on the 2008 election; one section relating to specified hours relegated that Council could adopt a schedule. The City Clerk stated there was a measure regarding the Council meeting. Councilmember Tam stated the measure also addressed to hours of operation because the Planning Department opens at 7:00 a.m. and the Library is open on Saturdays; Council did not want to be prescriptive in City Hall's hours of operation. The City Clerk stated that she would double check. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she recalls the measure-included hours of operation; previous hours of operation did not meet what is in the Charter; discussions included departments having different hours of operation. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 26 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf CityCouncil,2010-04-20,26,"for at least twenty years; the City's ordinance complies with the State and restates the law in a more user friendly way; anyone could have asked for a density bonus even if the ordinance was not in place. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether anybody could have requested a density bonus under State law before the City adopted its ordinance, to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative; stated one prior application did seek a density bonus. Mr. Faye stated specific changes were made to State law that allowed Charter cities to do things a little differently; particular changes to the Municipal Code would have rendered the Measure B election unnecessary; that he is not disputing the actual existence of a density bonus provision but the applicability to Charter cities and the way Charter cities can modify the Charter. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Faye is stating that the City had not adopted a density bonus ordinance before because the City was exempt as a Charter city. Mr. Faye responded in the negative; stated that he is not disputing that density bonus provisions were in place; the issue is what Charter cities can and cannot do under the modified State law relative to density bonuses; it goes to the Council's new ability to modify its Charter without an election of the people which was not the case in Alameda prior to the adoption of the Code in the middle of December of last year. The City Attorney/Legal Council stated State density bonus ordinances have always pre-empted [City ordinances]; Charter cities are just as bound as General Law cities. Mr. Faye stated it is the way in which the City adopted implementing State law to address the City's Charter that deals with attached housing. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Faye agrees that the State density bonus law applied in Alameda even before December. Mr. Faye responded the State density law applied; the State density law that allows Council to modify its Charter, as opposed to having an election of the people to modify the Charter, did not exist in the City until the middle of December. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he does not see any difference regarding density bonus between today and October or June; inquired whether the situation is the same; further inquired whether a density bonus application today is governed by the same rule of law as six months ago, to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated Mr. Faye is saying that the City can amend its Charter Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 6 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf CityCouncil,2007-12-04,26,"Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that Proposition 1A did not provide any protection for the City's redevelopment fund; requested clarification on the issue. The Finance Director stated the last Educational Revenue Augmentation funds (ERAF) were $711,000 out of $5 million of property tax in the past years; the construction of a takeaway formula is unknown; redevelopment agencies are the most vulnerable. louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated Council did not intend to use reserves for Beltline litigation costs; inquired what will be done in the future to prevent reoccurrence. The Finance Director responded any direction for use of funds needs to come from the City Manager to the Finance Department and needs to have discussions on funding. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated all money needs to be budgeted with approval of Council. The Finance Director stated that she understands that the money was approved for payment from the Risk Management Fund. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether audit practices and protocols are sufficient to catch any in the Finance Director's opinion; stated that authorization happened over a year agoi audits have been performed since that time; the matter is just coming to light now; inquired whether audit practices and protocols are sufficient. The Finance Director stated the only way that an auditor would be aware of the issue was if substantial information was available about the fact that the litigation was directed by Council; the direction would be in the form of information from the City Manager and the City Attorney to Finance. Councilmember/BoardMember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired how the issue was discovered. The Finance Director responded by review of the Risk Management Fund when the balance became a deficit. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the auditors look for deficits. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 12 and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf CityCouncil,2011-02-15,26,"overtime for the first time in June. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the staff report notes the CIC is losing $4.4 million in redevelopment funds because of Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation (SERAF) and has a potential loss of $900,000 to $1 million this year; inquired whether Proposition 22 was suppose to help shelter the funds. The Acting City Manager/Executive Director responded the SERAF payments are a hold over from the budget a couple of years ago; stated the City is stuck with the second year SERAF payment regardless of Proposition 22. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the City will never get the money back; inquired why projections at June 30, 2011 are approximately $55 million for revenues and $69 million for expenditures. The Controller responded the Special Revenue Funds are project oriented; stated funds get built up and are spent when there is enough money; reserves are being used [for projects] this year; some years, Special Revenue Fund reserves go down. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether lumping the Alameda Point Going Forward Project with ARRA repairs would sacrifice one for the other; stated the ARRA fund balance is $7.5 million as of June 2010. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded $700,000 would be drawn down on the ARRA fund balance leaving a $6.2 million fund balance at the end of this fiscal year. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the Police and Fire Departments have provided worst case scenarios; an unanticipated $2 million FISC fire required drawing down on ARRA reserves; ARRA was not previously charged for using water consumption due to an opened bypass valve diverting water from East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD); there is a $407,000 charge; there are unpaid reimbursement costs associated with the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) for maintenance of the Alameda Point water system between August 2005 and June 2009. The Public Works Director stated a year ago, EBMUD advised the City that ARRA had not been paying for water; a bypass valve had been opened which allowed water to go to Alameda Point without being metered; the City is on a payment plan for 18 months; 2008 and 2009 water expenditures were significantly less; the JPA realized that some bills were not paid while negotiating JPA renewal; EBMUD could not verify whether the charges were billed; the City is on an 18-month payment plan for said charges also. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether combined charges total $407,000. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 11 Community Improvement Commission February 15, 2001",CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf CityCouncil,2009-11-17,26,"The Planning Services Manager stated the ordinance would return to the Council no later than the first meeting in February the desire seems to be to apply caps and limits on concessions and incentives to residential properties and not mixed used commercial properties; questioned whether the Council/Commissior would move forward on an ordinance tonight with language added to Section 30-17.9 that states ""for commercially zoned or mixed use properties;"" stated the Planning Board would review residential properties and staff would come back with an amendment to the density bonus regulations. Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated the northern waterfront project included height limits; inquired how height limits would be reconciled if the density bonus ordinance includes height limits. The Planning Services Manager responded specific plan or planned development amendments would be required for modifications to projects with adopted regulations for specific sites. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated requirements for fire access should be reviewed if backyards are developed; that she is not sure if a fire truck could access the backyard of the monster house on Briggs Avenue. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated staff has some thoughts regarding the issue. Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether any new buildings are required to have sprinklers, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Counci lmember/Commissione: Matarrese stated residential caps should be technical, not arbitrary. Councilmember/Commissioner Tam moved introduction of the ordinance with the suggested modification on page 13. Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor/Chair Johnson clarified that the residential portion would go back to the Planning Board. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf CityCouncil,2010-09-07,26,"Shelter is not optimal for the animals; she wants a better facility. Commissioner Tam stated Mount Trashmore is not the right place. Commissioner deHaan stated past discussions have included taking in other districts to make the Animal Shelter profitable. The Interim Executive Director stated staff has looked at other options, including doing what Berkeley has done. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:03 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community 8 Improvement Commission September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf CityCouncil,2010-03-16,26,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY--MARCH - 16, 2010- 7:01 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 1:44 a.m. on March 17, 2010. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. MINUTES (10-13 CIC) Minutes of the Special CIC Meeting Held on March 3, 2010. Approved. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEM (10-129 CC/ARRA/10-14 CIC) Consider SunCal's Requests for 60-Day Tolling Period regarding Notice of Default Issued by Alameda on February 4, 2010. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what section of the Executive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) explicitly uses the terms ""Measure A"" and ""Measure A Compliant"". The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded no such terms are used; stated an interpretation suggests the terms; under the ENA, the developer had a chance to submit an initiative for a non-Measure A compliant plan; the initiative failed; under the terms of the ENA, SunCal is permitted to submit an Optional Entitlement Application (OEA) which complies with existing law, which in this case is Measure A; regardless of the fact that the ENA does not say ""Measure A"", that is the interpretation. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the City found SunCal in default because the OEA is not consistent with existing law; requested an interpretation of Section 3.2.5.1 of the ENA. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 1 Community Improvement Commission March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2008-06-03,26,"The Finance Director responded in 2002 refinancing was done for reconstruction of City Halli stated tax increment bonds were done for the CIC in 2003. Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether refinancing was done for interest rates only. The Finance Director responded City Hall reconstruction bonds were refinanced in 2002 and were originally issued in 2000. Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired what was the impact over the out years. The Finance Director responded the debt service was the same level every year; the prime motivation for the current proposal is not to get interest rate savings, but deferral. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City needs to look long-term; the report only looks at short-term. The Finance Director stated staff reviewed the matter from a perspective that the proposal is not good for the long-term, but is what needs to be done in order to have budget capacity for the next two years. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated direction has been given to always look at long-term. Vice Mayor/Authority Member Tam stated it does not make sense to spend down the fund balance if the same interest is earned on the fund balance. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated it does not make sense to use the fund balance because the City has so many other things to pay for with the fund balance, such as deferred health care retirement costs; the City needs to be living within its means and not defer payments. Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated the amount of money being deferred over the first two years is slightly under a million dollars; the extra money that would be spent over the life of the loan is $600,000. payments would be extended for two more years; she would like to hear from the City Auditor and City Treasurer. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much the payments are for the last Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 12 Financing Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf CityCouncil,2014-07-15,26,"agency serves many persons in Alameda (and receives some city funding to do so), I would just like to stress the need for having livable & affordable housing for those who do this kind of service work. I also volunteer my time for one of the City's Commissions and try to contribute to the community on a voluntary basis. I would hate to leave Alameda. Rent in Alameda is very cheap compared to the rest of the Bay Area. I'm a single mom. If there's another rent increase, I will have to move to a less safe city, further away from my job. We've lived here for 18 years. The rent increase has occurred, but the quality of service from the property manager and/or property owner has been inconsistent. I'm always worried I can no longer afford to rent in alameda and real estate pricing has sky rocketed so the idea of buying a home that I can live with my two kids remains that of a dream I will eventually have to move out of Alameda. Very concerned that our rent will go up by a lot after our one-year lease is up In comparison to other apartments in the same area, the amount is much higher. In addition, I pay an additional $80-90 per month for trash/sewage that is not included in the rent and based on the overall use of all tenants. I can't afford a $125 annual increase. In addition, I don't have normal amenities such as a microwave or dishwasher. Supposedly, the hike was in comparison to other comparable apartments in the area. Yet we don't have the amenities as other apartments in the area for the same price. There's other areas as well that have security for the same price. I've had my brand new car keyed in the very front of the building facing the street. The concern is that there seems to be no purpose to raise the rents other than across the board greed. I have no choice but to look to move out of the state of California seeing that my current rent for a one bedroom apartment is more than most mortgages for a 4 bedroom house outside California. I am throwing this money away instead of investing in my future. Landlord thinks he can get 1700.00 for a 2 bed room that has sub par electoral (4 fuses for the hole house and one plug per room a bathroom that is from the 50s ) has a illegal apartment on the ground floor ceilings are under 7' and is just a slum lord No increase in maintenance and upkeep. I could barely afford this one. If it goes up $100 every year or two, will need to move some place cheaper, which will mean moving out of Alameda. This seems like a sad reality. Already looking at San Leandro. There is 1 elderly adult and 1 disabled adult living in the home with me. We cannot afford to move, and we cannot afford the outrageous rent increases either. We are very friendly with all the neighbors and feel like this is home. We cannot afford to buy -- one nearby condo sold for $480,000 recently. The only concern I have is the landlord or management company may decide to ""market correct"" our rent. Currently units of a similar size and nature are fetching nearly double what we currently pay. This Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015 8 www.RenewedHopeHousing.or RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com I Laura Thomas (510)522-8901",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-07-11,26,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday July 11, 2018 6:30 p.m. wheelchair. That's my second item. Anto Aghapekian: The third that I have is, there was a forum composed by the League of Women Voters here in Alameda, and during that forum, there were four or five people that talked, and, Thomas, the City Planner, was also there. And they talked about the new housing state laws that I was very curious about to find out what this new laws are. And it's not code. It does not impact wheelchair. It's not code related. It's all number of housing. Each city is required, not requested. It's required by law to provide. And cities have been bucking this for about two, three years, but the state is making it very clear that if a city does not comply by providing a certain percentage of housing, per income Anto Aghapekian: All the details, then the state will stop all funding with that city, and that's paralyzing. That's a very serious threat. And they can do it and cities cannot do anything about it. So, cities have been approving housing projects on many fronts, as much as they can. Alameda is one of them. And the thing that is ironic is, the developers have put in a lot of money, getting their plans prepared and approved by the city, it takes sometimes years. And after they receive their approval, their permits to go ahead with the construction, they find out that the banks are refusing to give them the money, because they're creating low-cost housing or market value housing, and the banks say, ""The numbers don't jive. There is no way your income is going to be able to pay your loan, so we're not going to give you any money.' So, that's why some of the projects that have been approved that we know of, that's been advertised, or spoken of, written about in the papers, one of them being the brick building that used to be a factor - Del Monte. Anto Aghapekian: I think the guy had his approval, his permit about two or three years ago and it's still vacant. Nothing is going on and I saw a sign on it that says that it's ready for lease, but I don't know what that means. So this is really not much to do with what we're all about and yet it has impact as to availability of housing. The monies to build parks, the developers have promised to create parks, but they cannot do it. It's all at a standstill. And I just wanted to share that with you. Chair Beth Kenny: Thank you, Commissioner Aghapekian. Commissioner Linton? Jenny Linton: I joined a group this year called Genesis. They are a group of community organizers in Oakland over by the eastern edge of Lake Merritt. And this year they're focusing on Disability Justice. They've created a Disability Justice League, in particular, focusing on exactly what the anthropologists from the Haas Center of Disability Studies came and spoke to us about, which is around the intersection of multiple disabilities, being a woman with disabilities, a minority with disabilities. And along with their focus on disabilities, they're looking at housing and getting young people out of jail, and these things are all related. Housing is an issue for those with disabilities. Jenny Linton: Those without housing tend to find themselves in jail or in trouble earlier on and could or could not be disabled as well. And so they're working to organize groups, people willing to speak. We did a training this week at the Arc in San Leandro where we took a group of people from the day program and got them. Actually, my son and I both went to two different sites. Gave them a chance to talk about themselves and see who could develop the confidence to come speak to their assembly about what they need in their population, and they're called genesisca.org, and their 09/12/18 Page 26 of 29",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-07-11.pdf CityCouncil,2019-12-18,26,"City Council Workshop Workshop Report Management Partners Don't fall into the trap of feeling you are VERY special: While being elected to a city council is an honor bestowed upon you by the voters, keep that ""honor"" in perspective. Citizens view electing you as showing trust in your judgment in representing their interests in community decision-making. They did not elect you because they felt you were personally deserving of special rights and privileges. Don't expect the city manager or staff to be able to assist you in ways outside your formal role on the city council. By and large, they will be required to treat you just the same as any other citizen on matters outside the realm of your official duties. Any compensation and ""perks"" of office should be visible and public. Professional city managers will not ""play favorites"": Professional city managers will strive to have a positive working relationship with all the members of the city council regardless of personality, philosophy or positions on specific issues. They will also not let personal likes or dislikes affect how he or she interacts with councilmembers, and you should not expect the manager to act otherwise. It is critical to city managers to have clear policy direction: The city manager and the city organization cannot carry out the policy direction of the city council if that direction is not clearly established. The clearer the direction, the more effectively the manager and staff can implement. Even when the council is split on an issue, the majority's will needs to be clearly stated. The manager should seek clarification from the city council when necessary. Be sensitive to the need for city managers to sometimes tell you ""what you don't want to hear"": One of the least favorite tasks for a city manager is to tell an individual council- member or the council as a whole something they don't want to hear. This could range from a mistake the organization has made to informing a councilmember that something they want done (or want to do) cannot be done or is not appropriate. While city managers try to be as flexible as possible in meeting the needs of the city council, you will not be well served by a manager who will not tell you when something is not appropriate or cannot be achieved simply to avoid appearing uncooperative. While the manager needs to be clear why the request cannot be fulfilled, it is very helpful for you to understand that the manager has a professional obligation to give you advice contrary to what you would like to hear when he/she is so required. - 6 - 20",CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-03-01,26,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff could review whether some or all of the buildings are eligible for registration with the National Register of Historic Places, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Packet Landing process was useful for the developer to have a sense of where the Council stood; there is no point of going down a road knowing there would not be approval; she would defer to the Attorneys regarding any legalities. Councilmember Daysog stated the review of mixed-used zoning in general is an important discussion for Alameda citizens to have; a discussion about the waterfront site is on the minds currently; the type of mixed-use for the area has been housing oriented. Councilmember Oddie stated that he has concerns about the marina but would like to move forward with a workshop which would include an explanation of the current zoning. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to return with a report in April to include the concerns brought up by the Council. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (16-118) Councilmember Oddie requested the Clerk to correct the minutes to reflect the votes on AB 210 as 46 instead of 43. (16-119) Councilmember Daysog announced that he attended the East Bay League of California Cities Division Meeting on February 25th. (16-120) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended an Alameda County Industries (ACI) celebration of the one year anniversary of the recycling workers contract. (16-121) Councilmember Oddie announced that he was honored to judge the young kids history presentation at Bay Farm School. (16-122) Mayor Spencer announced she also attended the National History Day event at Bay Farm School. (16-123) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Commission on Disability Issues (CDI), the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners (HABOC) and the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC). Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-16,26,"efficiencies; the cost structure and impact must be reviewed. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City can put together language related to notification threshold at the current meeting. The Community Development Director responded it is possible; stated completing the language will take time; staff can come up with language addressing problems; Community Development Department staff will need the assistance of the City Attorney's Office. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the non-compliance protocols section of the agreement lists the only reasons that may be used as a basis for discharge from a facility as possession of a weapon at the facility, as opposed to possession of a weapon not at the facility; the contract should require people not to possesses a weapon, illegal drugs, assault or violent behavior, theft, etc. outside of the facility; the contract should be modified prior to Council approving the matter; it is important for staff to hold the community meeting prior to Council approval of the program; she thinks rents could be higher than reported by staff. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of delaying the decision until the next Council meeting to allow for community outreach and input. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is unfortunate the matter was brought forth without outreach; it is always important to reach out to the community prior to approval and allow the public to be part of the process. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the project is one that all can be proud of; 11 people per unit is a little too high; if the contract is tightened, he is willing to try; the housing crisis is present; staff should measure twice before cutting once and a delay until the next Council meeting would be in order to deal with the contract issues raised. Vice Mayor Vella stated as of the last point-in-time count, over 200 individuals do not have housing in Alameda; 200 people are being forced to sleep and shelter outdoors; Council has identified homelessness as a priority in its recent 5-year strategic plan; Council is making determinations from the safety and security of being housed; it is important to perform outreach with neighbors and have a contract in place; she does not want to delay the matter and will not support the motion. On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3. *** Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2021 15",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2019-03-13,26,"ITEM 3-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, March 13, 2019, 6:30 PM Jennifer Roloff: It's fairly recent, yes. I saw it on Facebook. Leslie Morrison: March 5th. Jenn Barrett: Do you have the title of the article? Anto Aghapekian: Yes, it's called, ""The program moved, no warning to parents"". And a highlight from one of the parents is, ""When our children are asked to move, it is often with almost no recognition, as if our children are invisible."" There is one paragraph in here that touched me. It's from one of the parents. And I don't know if I should read it, but I think that the school district should pay more attention to what's going down with these kids and their parents. Jennifer Roloff: I would be happy to do some follow-up on that as the liaison to school board. I could even go for public announcements and maybe just do an outreach to one of the school board members, as an action item. I don't know if that's going to solve the problem or get exactly what we want to do, but I can start there. Jenn Barrett: Great. Definitely. Leslie Morrison: Can we write a letter? Jenn Barrett: I'm going to check with Laurie on that. Leslie Morrison: I'd be happy to draft the letter, and circulate it for the commission to take a look at. Jenn Barrett: Great. Leslie Morrison: I certainly have a lot more questions about it, so I need to read the article and understand what's exactly going on. Susan Deutsch: And I have a lot of questions too. Leslie Morrison: So, thank you. But I'd be happy to draft a letter. Jenn Barrett: Great, that'll be great. Leslie Morrison: And circulate it, once I learn more. Jenn Barrett: Right. I'm frustrated that our meetings are SO far apart. By the time we come up and discuss this, it's going to be two months later. So let me reach out to Laurie to see what else we can do. Leslie Morrison: So it sounds like what they did is they moved the designated special education classroom that had been at Lincoln, and they moved it to Wood. That's just the first paragraph, what 03/13/19 Page 26 of 28",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2019-03-13.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-10,26,"operator comes back. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry about the artist studio, Councilmember Matarrese stated regulations should be tightened up to get to the goal; purposeful adjustments can be made if needed. The Assistant Community Development Director stated there is also artist studio industrial, which is a makers type use. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the artist studios would be floating, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Matarrese stated the studios are in the maritime commercial area; the idea is to drive efforts to bring maritime commercial to the core; artist studios are distractions; an amendment should come back if it cannot be done. The Assistant Community Development Director stated there are three different zones; Councilmember Matarrese wants the maritime core to focus on maritime uses; allowing art studios in zoning areas is a policy decision; the use is permitted or conditionally permitted in the other zones. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would go along with the suggestion. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether artist studios could be a conditional use in the maritime core rather than requiring a Plan amendment, and whether the same review would be required. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the common approach is to make desired uses permitted by right; stated uses that may be acceptable are conditionally permitted and non-desirable uses are prohibited. The Acting City Manager stated a conditional use permit would go back to the Planning Board, not the Council, unless appealed or called for review. Vice Mayor Vella stated the goal is to prioritize maritime; allowing a conditional use would provide an option after efforts are made to get maritime. Councilmember Matarrese stated said approach is not a good incentive; his proposal sends a message; the Planning Board worked very hard and listened to the public's desire to maintain the working waterfront; wavering now and allowing a conditional use is a disincentive; the message has to be clear that the maritime commercial core is for maritime use; the Plan could come back for adjustment if it is impossible. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she thinks having a conditional use, instead of a permitted use, makes it clear; her concern is time will added to the process and there could be vacancies; she supports the goal; hopefully, the groups that have fought for the space Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf OpenGovernmentCommission,2015-02-02,26,"Commissioner Tuazon stated it is still stored somewhere, just out of the website. Commissioner Dieter stated she is glad agendas and minutes are going to be removed; she also has a problem with EIR's, which can take up a lot of space because they are often big; however, when a project is still being built, people may want to go back to that, Alameda Point in particular, which was just passed last year; chances are the City will not move forward with building anything for a couple more years; in four years when the City is getting ready to start with one section, the EIR will already have been removed from the website; it makes more sense to remove it from the City's website once the project is final and has been built out. The City Clerk stated the Alameda Point EIR would be an exception and would be left up; people are going to be referring to it during all the phases; the Section is addressing the more typical EIR for a smaller project that would be completed within one year. Commissioner Dieter inquired could the language be that the EIR would be removed [from the website] when the project has been completed, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded staff can get terminology from Community Development to reflect the concept, which is a valid point. The Assistant City Attorney stated Section 12 on Public Records Index, struck language that was supposed to happen within 12 months from the enactment of the ordinance has been accomplished; there is no reason to keep it in the ordinance any longer; Section 13 on Matters of Public Concern, the attempt was to rework the language without changing the substance; the concern was it was not particularly clear; basically saying that an employee or policy board member can express an opinion as long as it does not materially misrepresent the position of the City or the department or the policy by which a member belongs. Commissioner Dieter inquired if it is similar to the one that the Commission tabled, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded it is similar but goes to a little different issue; stated if he is speaking as a member of the public but he happens to be on the Planning Board, he can indicate that he is a Planning Board member but he is only speaking on behalf of himself and not the Planning Board; he should not represent that he is representing the Planning Board, which is what this language is intending to address and is fair and accurate. Vice Chair Foreman stated that he has a little bit of a problem with it; he is conflicted; provided an example from last Council meeting when Karen Lucas spoke about the City trying to make peace with East Bay Regional Park District and suggested the City Manager be disqualified; stated that he can see a public employee making a public statement that he has every right to make but that makes it difficult for the City to perform its business; he not saying this [Ms. Lucas's commenting] is an example. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 26",OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2016-11-01,26,"(16-575) Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes - Councilmember Oddie, Vice Mayor Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Daysog - 2. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated meetings that go past 11:00 p.m. are not doing serving the public. *** (16-576) Consider Directing the City Manager to Immediately Hold a City Council Workshop on the Final Phase of the Bayport-Alameda Landing Disposition and Development Agreement DDA)\Development Plan. (Councilmember Daysog) Refer to the first referral on inclusionary housing [paragraph no. 16- for City Manager comments on all the referrals and public comment. Councilmember Daysog stated the developer has not complied with the vision for Alameda Landing and the developer should come to Council first. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of directing the City Manager to immediately hold a City Council workshop on the final phase of the Bayport-Alameda Landing DDA. Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion with a friendly amendment to remove the word immediately Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog accepted the amendment to the motion. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the date is not specific. Councilmember Oddie made a friendly amendment to adopt the staff's proposal for the next steps. Councilmember Daysog accepted the amendment to the motion. Mayor Spencer stated there is a motion with two friendly amendment. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (16-577) Consider Directing the City Manager to Have the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) Review City Policies and Procedures for Aiding Alameda's Homeless in Order to Make Recommendations to the City Council for Policy Revisions and Additions. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) Refer to the first referral on inclusionary housing [paragraph no. 16- for City Manager comments on all the referrals. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf CityCouncil,2015-10-20,26,"In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding Universal Studios, Mr. McManus stated space was rented for the Steve Jobs movie. Mayor Spencer stated that the City should broadcast and advertise wider than existing customers and Joe Ernst. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded Council selected Cushman and Wakefield and felt they were highly qualified. Mayor Spencer inquired if an RFP was done when they were selected, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer stated that she was not a part of Council at that time; she would like background information on how Cushman and Wakefield were selected, casting a wider net and how much money Cushman and Wakefield have been paid. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated that she could have provided a better back story. Mayor Spencer stated there is not sufficient due diligence in committing to use Cushman and Wakefield for Site B. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of proceeding with the new development strategy for the Enterprise District at Alameda Point following the specifications set forth by Vice Mayor Matarrese. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion; stated bringing Wrightspeed to Alameda was a homerun; that he is confident with moving forward with Cushman and Wakefield. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would like a measurement of the progress of the goals, which will answer some of the Mayor's questions; the number of new inquiries and commitments can be measured and will allow Council to judge performance. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, and Oddie - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. (15-630) Report on Leasing at Alameda Point. The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation; outlined properties on a map. Ted Anderson, Cushman and Wakefield, gave a Power Point presentation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf CityCouncil,2009-01-06,26,"allocated on an as-needed basis. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of re-allocating funds for the Chun property and reprogramming remaining funds to projects that would provide an immediate return. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner deHaan stated that he supports planting vines. Commissioner Gilmore stated planting could always be an option in the future; moving an economic project forward is important. Commissioner deHaan stated planting would be an inexpensive option; the problem would be future maintenance. Chair Johnson inquired whether the façade grant program still has funding, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the negative. Chair Johnson inquired whether remaining the remaining funds could be used for the façade grant program. The Development Services Director responded the City had a couple of substantial façade improvement projects; stated that she would not advocate using the remaining money [ for the façade program] because prevailing wages do not go very far; the program has been funded with loans that have been repaid and other revenue sources which are not restricted by prevailing wages. Commissioner Tam stated that she concurs with Commissioner deHaan; times are tight, but the funds have been contemplated and dedicated for theatre and garage improvements; a promise has been made ; spending money on vegetation is a minimal cost; that she is grateful that the Chun property owners and staff reached an agreement; thanked PSBA for offering to provide planters and maintenance; that she is supportive of doing both [planting and Chun improvements). Chair Johnson stated planting can be done later; no commitment has been made to the community spending needs to be prioritized; high priority projects need to be addressed. Commissioner Matarrese stated planting options can be made in the",CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,26,"These minutes were approved at the March 14, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 26 February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf CityCouncil,2018-06-05,26,"sufficient community discussion to reach two-thirds; the community demands specificity; provided a School District example; two-thirds is a high threshold; inquired whether the library bond required two-thirds vote. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the measure passed by 78.8%. Mayor Spencer stated the library measure is a great example of being very specific; she does not think there are sufficient meetings; inquired how much was spent on polling and mailers. The Public Works Director responded around $50,000 to $60,000 was spent; stated $25,000 was for the tracking survey; $25,000 was for financial calculations and legal analysis; mailers were around $10,000 or $15,000. Mayor Spencer stated that she did not get answers from the consultant the last time bond measure was presented; there should be real community meetings with discussions about community priorities; inquired about the polling for the $95 million. The Public Works Director stated the last tracking survey showed support in the 70% to 73% range. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the original polling for the library measure showed support was in the low 60s prior to any community education; the ballot measure was based on the priories from the poll; it is doable. Councilmember Oddie noted the County Measure A was polling in the 70s and is getting 63%. Vice Mayor Vella stated the polling was for different things than the new priorities being put forward; not fully funding projects is very different than a library bond; paving five miles of City streets is only a fraction of the miles of streets in the City; a lot of work needs to be done, including how the projects will be fully funded; the polling being used does not reflect what is being proposed now. On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: No; Vice Mayor Vella: No; and Mayor Spencer: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3. The Acting City Manager requested the Council address sales tax; stated there is a limited amount of time to proceed with a sales tax measure; the economic cycle is relatively good, which has proven to be the time to actually put a measure on the ballot; the five year forecast is not a great picture; in addition to reducing expenditures, help is needed on the revenue side. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf CityCouncil,2007-06-19,26,"Councilmember Matarrese stated that the accumulated Public Arts Fund can be for public art as well as for programs; the two-year budget cycle did not anticipate a 10% cut for the Museum subsidy the cycle can be finished out and $50,000 can be added for a Cultural Arts Program; $42,700 is already budgeted. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese is recommending adding $50,000 to what is being proposed tonight. Councilmember Matarrese responded that $8,000 is needed to fund a $50,000 Cultural Arts Program; $50,000 would be in the Museum fund; $46,000 is currently allocated for the Museum; $4,000 is the match for this cycle to close the Museum rent gap. The City Manager stated $7,500 was saved by not paying two months rent and could apply to the $8,000 needed [for the Cultural Arts Program]. Mayor Johnson inquired whether using the $42,000 [for the Cultural Arts Program] conflicts with the Public Arts Ordinance. The City Manager responded staff would come back to Council outlining obstacles funding sources would need to be identified. Mayor Johnson stated funding should be made available to other non- profits. Councilmember Matarrese stated a written agreement with the Museum should include all liability and insurance requirements and completion of a business and fundraising plan within a quarter. The City Manager clarified that the [Museum] grant would be for $46,000 with a total cap of $50,000 with matching donations. Mayor Johnson stated performance measures should be implemented. Vice Mayor Tam stated modified the recommendation should include that the Museum provide a annual performance report. Councilmember deHaan inquired why the $7,500 in unpaid rent would not be part of the over and above [funding for the Museum]. The City Manager responded the $7,500 would be applied to the matching grant for the other arts groups; stated the Museum would need to raise $4,000 as a match. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 15 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 19, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf CityCouncil,2006-10-17,26,"guide to a solution; initially, the policies would be run through the model on the way to a General Plan amendment and modified as needed; then, the policies would be used as interim guidance (with the exception of Policy No. 7, which needs some rework) with the qualification that the General Plan would prevail if there is a specific requirement in the General Plan that is contrary. Mayor Johnson stated it is important to make sure the requirement is really contrary. Councilmember Matarrese stated contrary means roadways would not be widened to create additional automobile travel lanes; contrary to the General Plan would be to widen ""X' Street with additional travel lanes as specified. Councilmember deHaan stated a lot of evaluation would not be necessary; only certain intersections need to be mitigated; the issue is being considered bigger than it is. Mayor Johnson disagreed with Councilmember deHaan; stated the interpretation being reviewed is that the policies cannot be used as guidelines because the policies are inconsistent with the General Plan; the policies could be used as guidelines in the interim because the policies do not appear to be inconsistent with the General Plan; she feels that Councilmember Matarrese's motion deals with the issue. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of appropriating funds to start the study with direction that: 1) the results come back through the Transportation Commission and the Planning Board for a General Plan Amendment to the Council, 2) Policy No. 1 through 6 are applied as guidelines in the interim, with Policy No. 7 to be rewritten; and 3) the guidance would be used unless there was an explicit conflict stated in the General Plan requirement. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other policies were reviewed and should be used as part of the test. The Transportation Commission Chair responded the Transportation Master Plan is a five-page document i stated the Transportation Element would be an entire revamp. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether everyone is using EMM2. The City Engineer responded everyone used EMM2 before; stated Voyager Cube is the new model and would be used by everyone. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether everyone means everyone in Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 October 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf CityCouncil,2005-06-07,26,"first and then get staffing recommendations. Councilmember Matarrese reiterated that the dollar amount of the reduction is small. that he likes the idea of contracting services; having a reduction in the processing of permits and review of plans costs the City and customer money in the long run; other budget issues are hard realities; stated City services cost a lot of money. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was $150 million in permits this year, to which the Building Official responded permits have totaled $138 million. Councilmember deHaan stated that there was not a budget for FY 2004-05 for nine months the ten-year plan will give better insight he is concerned with the future years; praised the efforts of all involved with the budget preparation; stated the information provided is good, hard data; it is important to have some balances in equity within pay structures and labor management agreements. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was glad that the public was present at tonight's meeting; she hoped that more people attend when the ten-year budget is presented; the City's past commitments will pay a big role in the future. Councilmember Daysog stated that having a ten-year budget is great but it is important to have a strong hold on the budget situation for the next 6 to 18 months suggested devising a system to track spending and see how the budget is evolving every two weeks. The Acting City Manager stated that he always reviews the budget with the Finance Director. stated that said information can be passed on to Council. Councilmember Daysog requested an Off Agenda Report on grant models and payment options; stated he looked forward to the City Attorney's review on how to handle the budget issues regarding",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf CityCouncil,2020-03-03,26,"Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolutions. Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White stated the staff report is very thorough; expressed support for the sustainability and resiliency position. Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports the item; the presentation is ringing alarm bells to be wary about spending. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (20-137) Recommendation to Approve the Park and Recreation Facilities Project Priorities. The Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the court date established is in February 2021. The City Attorney responded these types of cases suffer from everything else in the court system taking extended periods of time. In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney responded everything is a lower priority to criminal cases. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an eminent domain case would be heard before a criminal judge. The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the court system distributes judges, judges have to staff criminal courts first before civil courts. The Recreation and Parks Director continued the presentation. *** (20-138) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider the two referrals [paragraph nos. 20-140 and 20-141 after 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of considering the items. Councilmember Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether a timeline could imposed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 3, 2020 23",CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-19,26,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for ensuring the City is helping those in need and not delaying the process. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of giving staff the authority to provide [tenants] a deferral of any three months and up to an additional three months deferral per tenant which will be converted into a promissory note; staff will return for further Council discussion related to potential abatement without a cap. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the motion. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the motion includes staff returning in June with the proposed criteria for potential conversion to 50% grant for discussion. Councilmember Oddie responded June or July. Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White stated people need certainties; expressed support for the criteria to be provided sooner rather than later. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the item will return in June or after a few months. Vice Mayor Knox White responded June or July. The City Manager requested the motion be re-stated. The City Clerk stated the motion is to give staff authority to provide any three month deferral and up to an additional three months deferral per tenant which will be converted into a promissory note; staff will return for further Council discussion related to potential abatement without a cap with a discussion to return regarding potential conversion to 50% grant. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is also supportive of 100% due to complete lockdown. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the parameters can be left open since the item will return. The City Manager inquired whether the motion includes abatement while closed down, plus three month with an additional three months. Councilmember Oddie stated abatement has been deferred; the April, May and June deferral has the option to be taken in any three months if the deferral has not been taken in April, May or June; Council authorizes the City Manager to grant additional deferrals on a case-by-case basis of up to an additional three months if requested, which will be converted into a promissory note; the discussion on abatement or 50% conversion into grants will be discussed in June or July. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 17 May 19, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-19.pdf CityCouncil,2019-09-03,26,"(19-491) Councilmember Daysog made an announcement regarding attending the East Bay Division meeting of the League of California Cities. (19-492) Councilmember Oddie stated Stopwaste is doing a Proposition 218 election to lower the hazardous waste recycling fee, whichwill be a mail-in only if opposed type of election; announced that he attended National Night Out. (19-493) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she and the City Manager toured the closed Alameda County Glenn Dyre jail, which is being considered as a proposal to shelter homeless persons. (19-494) Vice Mayor Knox White stated a link has been provided for the League of Women Voter's Charter workshops; discussed Estuary Park homeless encampment. ADJOURNMENT (19-495) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:58 p.m. with a moment of silence for the victims of the dive boat accident in Southern California, and a moment of remembrance for the victims of mass shootings Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 3, 2019 24",CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf CityCouncil,2021-04-20,26,"Not heard. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (21-279) Mayor's Nominations for Appointments to the Golf Commission and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. Not heard. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 April 20, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-04-20.pdf CityCouncil,2008-01-15,26,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - -JANUARY 15, 2008- - -7:25 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (08-03) Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project. The Redevelopment gave a brief presentation. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the interior restoration was damaged due to leaks, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the negative. Chair Johnson stated that she is glad the leaks were discovered now and not after the Theater opens. Commissioner deHaan stated restoration and parking garage costs are $16 million; inquired whether the overall project cost totals $37 million, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number . ] ( *08-04) - Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting of January 2, 2008. Approved. ( *08-05) Recommendation to approve a Contract with City Design Collective in the amount of $74,925 for the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business District. Accepted. (*08-06) Resolution No. 08-152, ""Authorizing the Substitution of a Surety Bond for the Cash Funded Reserve Account Relating to the Commission's $17,510,000 Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds (Business and Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 1 January 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf CityCouncil,2018-10-16,26,"The Economic Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the buffer zone would only apply to dispensaries; cultivation would be taken out; all other sensitive uses would have a 600 foot buffer. Councilmember Oddie inquired if there could just be the one potential nursery license, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about consideration of places of worship. Mayor Spencer stated places of worship would be considered by the Planning Board. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested adding a definition to sensitive use. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the Planning Board could stipulate certain dates and times relevant to surrounding areas. The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. The Economic Development Manager stated the C1 would be added to the zoning for cannabis activities, the CM would be added to the zoning for cannabis activities, and adult use would be added to the zoning for cannabis activities. Mayor Spencer moved introduction of the land use ordinance. The Economic Development Manager noted dispersion would be removed from the land use ordinance. Mayor Spencer inquired whether or not the dispersion removal is part of the approval, to which the Base Reuse and Economic Development Director responded the action is to vote on the land use ordinance and the dispersion requirement is not included. The Assistant City Attorney inquired if the potential changes from pending operators should be included as well, to which Mayor Spencer responded in the affirmative. The Assistant City Attorney presented language for review. Mayor Spencer included the language presented in her original motion. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2. The Economic Development Manager stated Council voted to include dispersion, needs to specify how it will be modified. Mayor Spencer inquired if the language is available for review. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 16, 2018 23",CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf CityCouncil,2021-01-19,26,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 19, 2020- 5:45 P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:58 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Spencer, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.] Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (21-023) Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9); Case Name: City of Alameda V. Union Pacific (Sweeney); Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Number: RG18921261. Not heard. (21-024) Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9); Case Name: Friends of Crab Cove V. Vella et al.; Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Number: RG18933140; Court: First District Court of Appeal; Case Numbers: A159140 and A159608. (21-025) Withdrawn - Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8); Property: Encinal Terminals, Located at 1521 Buena Vista Avenue (APN 072-0382-001,-002 and 72-0383-03), Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager, Andrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Director, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development Director; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and North Waterfront Cove, LLC; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms. Not heard. (21-026) Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation Requests for the City to Participate as Amicus in Pending Litigations (Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9); Case Name: Apartment Association of Los Angeles County, Inc. V. City of Los Angeles et al; Court: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Case Number: 20- 56251. (21-027) Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9); Case Name: Abdul Nevarez and Priscilla Nevarez V. City of Alameda; Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California; Case Number: 20-cv- 8302 Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that regarding the Union Pacific, the matter was not heard; regarding Friends of Crab Cove, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5; this litigation involves legal Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf CityCouncil,2015-09-15,26,"a specific topic. The City Attorney stated the interpretation of the nomination process section of the Charter is directive, not mandatory; it has to be read as consistent with other provisions of the Charter; if it was read literally as has been suggested, it would mean if there was a vacancy during a year, then it could not be filled until July 1. In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Daysog stated it would be cynical on his part to vote for the issue just to have conversation because he does not support the referral. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT (15-566) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting in memory of Augusta Collins at 1:24 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 September 15, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-15.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-11-28,26,"ITEM 2-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 28, 2018, 6:30 PM Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: 10:00 to 2:00. Okay. So I would like to make an additional motion that we have the retreat on February 9th, from 10:00 to 2:00 PM. Can I have a Second? Susan Deutsch: I second. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Okay. All in favor? All: Aye. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Any abstain or nay? No? Okay. Okay, I believe we're all set now. 5. OLD BUSINESS 5-A Commission and Board Liaison Reports (All commissioners) Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Old Business Commission and Board Liaison Reports. Commissioner Brillinger? Arnold Brillinger: Yes, I've been going to various commissions on disability in Berkeley and also in Oakland. The ones in Oakland seem to have lot of meat to them, because they're doing all kinds of work. Not only worried about the paratransit in the East Bay, but they're also dealing with different matters of transportation and how things are being constructed in Oakland. And I also went to the different AC Transit meeting, and they're continuing on with the working on International Boulevard to make it where the buses have their own lanes and things. So it's going to be interesting to see that. Our transportation meeting here in Alameda is next week, so I'll tell us about it in January. So those are my things. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Great, thank you. Commissioner Roloff? Jennifer Roloff: The only thing I wanted to follow up on is And I think, I don't know if we have a commission, but is it Jennifer, Jen and Anto, you were working on ADA for businesses, and we had suggested that the Facade grant that the city matches be extended into businesses doing ADA, and essentially, Laurie came back with a ""No"". And I'm wondering if there's a way we can push on that, if we could talk to someone in the city offices as to why or. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: That would be great. Do we know who is in charge of issuing the grant, or different grants for the city? Jennifer Roloff: Like the Facade grant. Do you remember the Facade grant, and that you came back and you said you checked into it and they said ""No""? And I'm thinking maybe we can push a little bit. Laurie Kozisek: I can't remember at the moment. I will get back to you on that. Who should I report that to? 03/13/19 Page 26 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-11-28.pdf CityCouncil,2017-06-06,26,"Safe Cannabis Businesses in Alameda. Not heard. (17-361) Consider Directing Staff and the Transportation Commission to Analyze Traffic Calming Solutions at the Intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman Street. WITHDRAWN. (Vice Mayor Vella) COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (17-362) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he represented Alameda in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) General Assembly; per the direction of Council, he cast a no vote against the current budget and work program; the work program did not meet the needs described in the staff report. Mayor Spencer thanked Councilmember Matarrese for representing Council. Councilmember Matarrese stated the ABAG Director indicated ABAG and MTC will be officially merged as of July 1st; the work plans will be going through another refinement. (17-363) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended the Alameda County Lead Abatement Meeting. (17-364) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Commission on Disability Issues, Golf Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Library Board, Planning Board, Public Art Commission, Public Utilities Board (PUB), Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC), Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) and Transportation Commission. Mayor Spencer nominated Ann McCormick for reappointment the PUB, Christopher Griffiths for reappointment to the RRAC, Sarah Murray for appointment to the RRAC, and Claudia Medina for appointment to the SSHRB. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:42 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 17 June 6, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,26,"Discussed the Amended Employment Agreement; stated that he would like the rules which have been applied to landlords to be the same as City employees: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda. The City Clerk announced the modifications to the City Attorney contract [paragraph no. 21-462] Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the City Attorney contract be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*21-449) Minutes of the Special Meeting Held on May 20, 2021, the Continued May 18, 2021 Special Meeting Held on May 25, 2021, and the Regular Meeting Held on June 1, 2021. Approved. (*21-450) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,844,766.59. (*21-451) Recommendation to Modify Eligibility Requirements for Non-Profit Organizations Applying for Alameda Strong Community Relief Fund by Including Paycheck Protection Program Recipients and Adding a Requirement Related to the Maximum Number of Employees Employed by the Non-Profit Organization. Accepted. (*21-452) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Two-Year Agreement, Substantially in the Form of the Attached Agreement, with the Option of Three One-Year Extensions for a Total Five-Year Compensation Amount Not to Exceed $420,000 and No More than $90,000 in a Single Fiscal Year with HouseKeys to Provide Inclusionary Housing Program Management and Compliance Services to the City of Alameda. Accepted. (*21-453) Resolution No. 15793, ""Approving a Final Map and Authorizing Execution of a Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 8591, Bay 37, as a Condition to Final Map Approval (Alameda Landing Waterfront Development).' Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (21-454) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15794, ""Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Add and Revise Fees."" Adopted. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to keep in mind the options offered in the staff report; requested clarification on the options presented. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-20,26,"Closed Session was not held on the matter tonight because of a clerical error; that she does not have the benefit of her colleague's and legal team's thinking. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated no allegations have been directed toward her; she understands there have been claims and spins regarding the investigative reports. The City Attorney./Lega Council stated SunCal's attorneys have threatened to sue the City if the City does not do what SunCal wants; having a litigation defense briefing would not change the situation and would have no bearing on the Councilmembers/Board Members'/Commissioners' decision tonight; City staff, including a significant legal team of land use attorneys, CEQA attorneys, and litigators, have done a through analysis of the issues before the Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners tonight and have made a recommendation to the Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners; SunCal also says that it is entitled to the benefit of the deal that SunCal has made; the deal is the ENA; the ENA specifically states that damages would be limited to return of SunCal's $1 million deposit in the event of the City's breach of its obligation to negotiate diligently and in good faith. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether SunCal's damages would be limited to $1 million if SunCal sues the City and is successful. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the negative; stated the benefit of the bargain SunCal made set forth in black and white in the ENA specifically states SunCal's damages would be limited to a return of the $1 million deposit; that she does not believe tonight's forum is a good time to get into a legal issue debate with SunCal's attorneys. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the ENA expired yesterday; the City does not have a Navy term sheet; inquired whether the question on the agenda tonight is whether or not to accept the MOEA. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the question on the agenda is whether or not to follow the staff recommendation to deny the MOEA which could be done without prior CEQA review; stated Councilmembers/Boarc Members/Commissioners cannot approve the MOEA without CEQA review. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation; stated the project has the same flaws as the project before the voters; the DDA would not change the issue; opening the process up would be beneficial to the City. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 14 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-05,26,"5. (17-436) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a 15-Year Lease with Three Five-Year Extension Options with Teleport Communications of America, LLC for Conduit Space for One Innerduct Containing Fiber from the Intersection of Grand Street and Fortmann Way Across the Oakland Estuary to Coast Guard Island [Requires Four Affirmative Votes]. Introduced. Councilmember Matarrese requested clarification for the audience. The City Manager stated the conduit goes from the Island to Coast Guard Island and it requires approval by Council. Councilmember Matarrese stated the item is essential for Coast Guard activity. Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (17- CONTINUED) Recommendation to Award a Five Year Contract for an Amount Not to Exceed a Total Five Year Expenditure of $8,264,931.69 to West Coast Arborists, Inc. for Citywide Urban Forest Maintenance Services, No. P.W. 04-17-25. The City Engineer responded to Vice Mayor Vella's questions regarding funding for the golf course contract; stated the trees within the golf course are being managed by an outside entity called Greenway; the golf funds can be used to maintain the trees that are adjacent to the golf course; if the City Council wants to remove the funds from the contract, General Fund money would be used instead. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the amount is for the trees that are adjacent to the golf course. The City Engineer responded in the affirmative. In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding the amount, the City Engineer stated approximately $20,000. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of adopting the contract, with clarification that approximately $20,000 is allocated from golf fund to maintain trees adjacent to golf course. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf CityCouncil,2007-11-06,26,"(07-516C CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a First Amendment to Development Agreement DA-06-003 By and Between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) Continued to December 4, 2007. . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community 3 Improvement Commission November 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf CityCouncil,2006-12-05,26,"The Assistant City Manager stated all the Tinker Avenue determinations have to be made before the project is started in the second and third phase. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated she is concerned about what to do with the existing phase of the project until the City figures out what to do with Tinker Avenue. ouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether there are processes and mechanisms in place to deal with referenced transportation questions. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the documents could be adopted as amended; stated the DDA provision could be expanded when the Tinker Avenue declaration of infeasibility comes to Council; the TDM could be augmented; the goals of the TDM Program could be articulated. The Assistant City Manager stated the DDA was designed to be as flexible as possible in order to respond to need; the developer is trying not to allow the City to come back with an unlimited tax for money to fix problems that might arise. louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he is comfortable that processes are in place to deal with issues that Council has raised; the process has been long; it is important to believe that trust has been built. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated approval could be given with direction to add language and provisions relating to issues discussed. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore requested clarification on the TDM inquired whether the TDM would be devised after specific approval of project phases and could go hand in hand. The Supervising Planner responded the Conditions of Approval require that a detailed TDM program describing the entire program for all phases be presented to the Transportation Commission and Planning Board; stated operations have been front loaded; Condition of Approval #11 states buses would be on the road and running at a minimum 30-minute headway for the first 100,000 square feet of nonresidential or first 150 housing units, whichever comes first; the project is the beginning of the West End TDM program. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 15 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-18,26,"Councilmember Matarrese stated there is other evidence and other notice that goes along with three public hearings and the documents generated with those hearings; the operator admitted that it is impossible to comply with the conditions of the UP; he will not support overturning the Planning Board's decision. Vice Mayor Vella stated the conditions are in place because the use restrictions are not in conformity with the area; parking is an issue for the area; she does not believe the conditions will be met by the prospective owner due to the fact that they will not be the actual operators; she supports upholding the Planning Board's decision. Mayor Spencer stated there is a lot to be learned moving forward; the conditions need to be clearly stated to the parties involved and staff needs to enforce the conditions sooner; property owners should ensure tenants following the UP conditions; requested that staff allow Council to weigh in to be able to make definitive decisions in the future, stated that she will support the Planning Board's decision. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Oddie - 1. Mayor Spencer called a recess at 12:31 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:40 a.m. *** (17-484) Recommendation on City Council's Direction to Create a ""Straws on Request"" Ordinance and Review Ordinance No. 2977 to Address that ""To Go"" Food Ware, Including Straws, be Reusable, Compostable, or Recyclable. Stated that she supports the draft ordinance; the ordinance will provide a Citywide model for the Bay Area and the whole country: Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA). Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (17-485) Public Hearing to Consider: 1) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Bayport Alameda Landing Master Plan. Introduced; 2) Approving and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Consent to Partial Assignment and Assumption Agreement (Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project) - Waterfront); and 3) Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an Operating Memorandum for the Development Agreement Consistent with the Term Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf CityCouncil,2022-01-04,26,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY--JANUARY 4, 2022- 5:45 P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:47 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Councilmember Herrera Spencer arrived at 5:59 p.m. and Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 6:04 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.] Absent: None. Consent Calendar (22-001) Recommendation to approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, Elizabeth Mackenzie, Chief Assistant City Attorney, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development Director, as Real Property Negotiators for Building 163, Located at 1800 Orion Street, Suite 100 and Building 414, Located at 1820 Orion Street, Alameda, CA. Not heard. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (22-002) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code 54956.8); Property: Alameda Point, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, Elizabeth Mackenzie, Chief Assistant City Attorney, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development Director; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Sustainable Technologies, 1800 Orion Street, Suite 101 (Building 163) and 1820 Orion Street Alameda Point (Building 414). Not heard. (22-003) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager, and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organization: Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA), Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA), and Alameda Fire Managers Association (AFMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that staff provided information and Council provided direction, by the following two roll call votes: Vote 1: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2; Vote 2: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 4, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf CityCouncil,2020-02-18,26,"The City Manager stated the decision is before Council due to the item previously being brought to Council. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether direction can be provided to refer concerns and have staff return. In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's concerns about the work environment, Councilmember Vella stated any Human Resource issues, such as a hostile work environment claim, should have a process; expressed concern about artists; stated any changes should be implemented with notice. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff should provide input. Vice Mayor Knox White stated the boundaries for the program are fine; questioned whether the decision can be left with staff as opposed to bringing the item back to Council. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the program, the operational characteristics of the piece, so that staff can implement an Art in City Hall, including City Hall West, as they see fit. The Public Information Officer inquired whether there is direction about the upcoming exhibit in April. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff can look into the upcoming exhibit. Vice Mayor Knox White stated the PAC can look into the matter as well. The City Manager stated staff is not making decisions based on the art itself. The Public Information Officer stated the April exhibits will move forward as planned if the item is brought to the PAC. Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for keeping the art in the original place indicated. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the third floor is not the best place for art. Councilmember Vella stated any change in venue should be enacted in 2021 to keep commitments. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the artists can be contacted, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. The Public Information Officer stated an e-mail can be sent to the artist's interested parties list. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 February 18, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-02-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-10-18,26,"Relations Board (SSHRB) Review City Policies and Procedures for Aiding Alameda's Homeless in Order to Make Recommendations to the City Council for Policy Revisions and Additions. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) Not heard. (16-546) Consider Directing the City Manager to Initiate Revisions to the Ordinances and Code Sections for Mixed-Use Zoning in the City of Alameda to Aid Retention of Beneficial Commercial Uses within Areas Zoned for Mixed Use. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) Not heard. (16-547) Consider Directing Staff to Review Enacting a Minimum Wage Increase in Alameda. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (16-548) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended the League of California Cities conference and she was sworn in as the At-Large Representative for the Easy Bay division. (16-549) Councilmember Oddie stated that he attended the Alameda International Film Festival. (16-550) Mayor Spencer stated that she attended the League of California Cities Conference and she just returned from Yeongdong-gun District in South Korea exploring whether to have a Sister City in said location; she participated in a four day cultural festival. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 18, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-16,26,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned how information could be reviewed. Mayor Spencer stated people could send emails or correspondence; she is concerned with how many staff members will have to be hired to run the program. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated data will be more useful and reliable if it is systematically collected. Mayor Spencer stated her relocation fee concern is how would the City enforce the tenant moving out if the half paid up front: a stipulated judgement or an irrevocable notice of termination; something enforceable is needed; a landlord cannot be expected to pay money then not have the tenant leave on a date certain. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are repercussions for a tenant not leaving on a date certain, such as an unlawful detainer. Mayor Spencer stated an unlawful detainer takes a lot of money and time in court; stated maybe a requirement should be a part of the administrative regulation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the first year of the program should be in good faith. Mayor Spencer stated a landlord paying relocation benefits should not also have to do an unlawful detainer to evict the tenant; inquired whether there is a solution; stated the landlord should pay the relocation fees as the tenant leaves, concurrently. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are costs to securing a new residence. Mayor Spencer stated there needs to be something in place to make sure the tenant leaves on the date certain. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the RRAC should mediate eviction issues and the City should not codify a formula that says how much is paid whether it is time or money; working with the RRAC model is cleaner than trying to fit every case into a set of ordinance sections. Councilmember Daysog urged Council to continue the meeting to address the issues because the changes are too substantial. Councilmember Oddie stated paying 50% up front is fair; inquired if there is data of tenants that have defaulted after receiving 50% first. The Assistant City Attorney responded there is no concrete data; he is not aware there is a problem; stated the matter can be revisited in one year; tenant can also be weary of the landlord giving them the other 50%. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-09-04,26,"Councilmember Matarrese stated the gathering of information is like running in place; Council should be informed with broader information; some statistics are good, but he would like to see the information coupled with Business License annual reporting. Councilmember Oddie inquired if any cases are handled outside the RRAC. The Assistant City Attorney responded part of the process is to have staff trained in mediation; stated landlords and tenants participate in mediation facilitated by staff that will sometimes result in a case being settled prior to the RRAC meeting. Councilmember Oddie inquired how many mediations occur and if outside parties facilitate mediation. The Assistant City Attorney responded there are not outside mediations; stated RRAC meetings are typically broken up into two pieces: first is mediation, and the second is a quasi-judiciary hearing where the RRAC hears testimony and makes a recommendation; the landlord and the tenant are encouraged to engage in mediation before the process begins to facilitate an agreement. Councilmember Oddie inquired if the number of mediations is known. The Assistant City Attorney responded the number was reported in the data. Councilmember Oddie inquired how many cases do not come to the RRAC because the City never receives notice. The Assistant City Attorney responded notice if filed for mediation that does happen; stated the ability to resolve the matter with a court action goes to a full hearing. Councilmember Oddie inquired if said instance occurs with or without a notice. The Community Development Director responded under the ordinance the landlord is required to notify the Housing Authority if the rent increase is higher than 5%; the Housing Authority received 188 notices of rent increases above 5%, and of those, 62%, or 85 cases, were settled with the assistance of staff. Councilmember Oddie inquired if mediation is occurring outside of the RRAC process before someone files a notice. The Community Development Director responded the program would not know said information. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Housing Authority would welcome any information regarding outside mediation occurring before the RRAC process; that he would be follow up with the public speaker. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 September 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-09-04.pdf CityCouncil,2021-02-02,26,"matters. Councilmember Knox White expressed support for having a discussion of LPRs brought back; stated that he would like the matter to include information about proven effectiveness; many neighboring cities which have installed LPRs have seen increases in crime after installation; stated that he has not found any good, well-documented effectiveness studies on LPRs in California; expressed support for an getting a time estimate on the traffic analysis in the coming months; stated Council needs the information to guide conversations; outlined injuries and deaths by cars; stated the greatest harm to the community is coming from those being hit by drivers. (21-075) Recommendation to Provide Feedback on City Facility Naming Policy and Procedures. Not heard. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Not heard. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Not heard. COUNCIL REFERRALS (21-076) Consider Establishing a New Methodology by which the Number of Housing Units are Calculated for Parcels Zoned C-2-PD (Central Business District with Planned Development Overlay). (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard. (21-077) Consider Directing Staff to Provide a Police Department Staffing and Crime Update. Not heard. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-078) Consider Directing Staff to Provide an Update on a Previously Approved Referral regarding Free Public WiFi throughout the City. Not heard. (Councilmember Spencer) Not heard. (21-079) Consider Directing Staff to Extend Webster Street Physical Improvements/ Beautification. Not heard. (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (21-080) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointments to the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Transportation Commission. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Randy Renschler. (21-081) Announcement of Mayor's Appointment to a Council Subcommittee to Review Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 February 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2009-02-07,26,"The Supervising Accountant responded two bases are used for the calculations : the actual pay out for workers' compensation claims and the department payroll. The City Treasurer inquired how much the department payroll is bumped up. The Interim Finance Director responded around 3 to 5% the exact number would be provided. The City Treasurer stated approximately $4 million could be needed in the next fiscal year. Mayor Johnson stated using present value [for equipment replacement ] does not make sense. The Interim Finance Director stated the model could be run using future value. The City Treasurer stated workers' compensation costs should be assigned to the source. In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry regarding the $4 million, the City Treasurer reviewed how he came up with his estimate. The City Manager concluded the discussion. * * * Mayor Johnson called a recess at 3:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 3:50 p.m. *** (09-065) Consider various financing and pre-funding options for Other Public Employee Benefit (OPEB) The City Manager gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson requested staff to provide a breakdown of the amount owed; stated the Council received a report that the range was from $70 million to $140 million; inquired whether there is no longer a range and the amount is $75 million. The Interim Finance Director responded the amount required to be funded is the net present value of the unfunded liability, which is $75.6 million; stated the breakdown is: $34. 1 million for police, $34.2 million for fire, and $7.5 million for all others. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 26 February 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-07,26,"wireless hotspots for years in order to help people who do not have internet access; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 18",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-02,26,"There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 2, 2021 23",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-05-09,26,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MUTES OF Wednesday May 9, 2018 6:30 p.m. they're having with the commission. So I hope that all works itself out. I know there are a couple spots open on the commission. If we know anyone who might be interested in actually being on that commission, who has an interest in people with disability in Alameda too, I think we could do some networking for that. But as far as the meeting I went to, they were doing some assignments on the city property and the different city gyms and who was allowed to use them. They do annually, the space is allocated, and if I had more time, I'd like to see some of the sports teams and groups that represent and have children with disabilities, if they are getting fair play in there, but being SO new, I just went and sit back and listened. Pay attention to them. And as I mentioned, there is a meeting tomorrow night. Beth Kenny: Great, thank you. Commissioner Deutsch, you mentioned that you had stuff Susan Deutsch: Yes, I do. I went to Salinas, and there's an accessible playground there that was built totally by community funds through fundraising. And it's called Tatum's Garden. It was started by a family who had a daughter with Spina bifida, and her name was Tatum. And this playground was amazing and I've taken a lot of photos and I've taken a few videos, and I was hoping at some point, I don't know what meeting, I could make a PowerPoint and present this to our committee. And I was also thinking of presenting it to Park and Rec. My last communication with them, they were saying how all the playgrounds in Alameda all need to be redone, one at a time, so that's a possibility. But I was also thinking that whole West End project, there's a lot of land out there. An opportunity. I'd have to go out and look around. A friend of mine actually told me to look at a specific spot. I have to check in with him again. Beth Kenny: Is this Jean Sweeney Park you're talking about? Susan Deutsch: No. He was just saying there's nothing there now and they're going to be putting in housing. So but, I can't look that far ahead, but I would like to at least present. This playground was accessible to kids in wheelchairs. There were swings for kids with other issues. There was stuff for kids with autism. Just it was totally accessible. It was in Salinas, and so it was kind of a farm theme. But it didn't have to be a farm theme, but it was. It made it kind of cute because the climbing wall had fruits and vegetables to hold on to, so I thought that was cute. Hold on to the watermelon, put your foot on the tomato. Susan Deutsch: That kind of thing. They do have a lot more land out there, so that does make a difference, but it's just it's something that ever since I've been on this commission, I've wanted to see an accessible playground in Alameda, and I finally saw one that was really good. Anto Aghapekian: I think that all of us would love to see it. Beth Kenny: Yes. I think we can get you on the agenda for July, if you're able to present then. Anto Aghapekian: Oh I'll be able to present in July, yes. Thank you. Beth Kenny: Thank you. Vice Chair Barrett? Jenn Barrett: So for the planning committee, I also have not been to one since our last meeting. 05/30/18 Page 26 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-05-09.pdf CityCouncil,2007-01-02,26,"currently, certain things can be changed by the TDM Program staff; annual reports would go to the Planning Board and the Transportation Commission for evaluation, feedback, and comment. Mayor Johnson stated Council might want the opportunity to have changes come to Council; the Planning Board is not a specialist in transportation; Council may want to have some input on readjusting dollars and determining how dollars are spent inquired whether there would be a commitment in the agreement with Clif Bar regarding the water taxi. Mr. Marshall responded the water taxi service is part of the negotiations with Clif Bar. Mayor Johnson stated a problem might arise if the water taxi is not doing well, but an obligation exists with Clif Bar. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the day-one requirement stipulates that the water taxi feasibility study be completed and that the water taxi be instituted when deemed feasible and be in operation for one year. Mayor Johnson stated she was referring to the developer's agreement with Clif Bar. Mr. Marshall stated the developer is required to provide the water taxi service during the period of establishing retail outlets. Mayor Johnson stated the water taxi costs would come out of the TDM Program the first year; the developer and Clif Bar would have a separate commitment if there was a determination that the water taxi was not an effective use of the TDM Program money. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the developer has to comply with the DDA requirements in the Master Plan conditions the developer will operate the water taxi for one year at minimum; the money can be reprogrammed if the TDM Program staff determines that the water taxi is not feasible and effective; Catellus could not veto the decision. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether scheduling would be impacted if the ordinances for DA-06-0002 and DA-06-0004 are finally passed and DA- 06-0003 was postponed for two weeks in order for staff and the Transportation Commission to address questions raised. The Supervising Planner stated the amendment needs to be crafted now in order to come back in two weeks; there is no time to go to the Transportation Commission; the criteria used to evaluate the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf CityCouncil,2005-08-16,26,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - -AUGUST 16, 2005- - -6:10 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05-395) Conference with Labor Negotiator - Agency Negotiator : Arthur Hartinger of Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and Wilson; Employee: City Attorney. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the City Attorney and no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf CityCouncil,2005-07-19,26,"can spend $35,000 without Council approval inquired whether the City Attorney would bring the matter to the City Council if the total estimate of the litigation expense is more than $35,000. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a large case would have to go to Council; the proposal has a number of additional restrictions for a smaller case, such as a sidewalk trip and fall i that she could only pick from a pre-qualified panel; if there is a slip and fall with a cost estimate of $15,000, the City Attorney would review the matter and provide the Council notice, financial reports, and cost estimates; outside counsel would be selected from the panel. Mayor Johnson stated there are small cases that should be handled in house; the City has five attorneys and should not farm out a $15,000 trip and fall case; insurance adjustors handle said cases in the private sector; the City should not use outside counsel for little cases that should be handled in house; the City has five staff attorneys and spends a lot of money on outside counsel; the staffing level should be reviewed if every $15,000 trip and fall is farmed out. The City Attorney stated the proposal is to deal with one issue; there is a process in place for reviewing performance and management goals for the utilization of outside counsel going forward so that the Council establishes performance standards and expectations of the City Attorney's office; that she hears the Council; that the matter is a budget issue; the City Attorney's office will do more with less, try to do more litigation in house and work with the Council to establish the balance that the Council wants between five attorneys. Mayor Johnson stated that she did not want to address the balance and how it would be established; further stated that she would prefer $25,000 [as the threshold]. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $35,000 is for each matter. Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated that [$35,000] is what the City Attorney is proposing. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is a period of time. The City Attorney responded there are lots of time periods: notice within 24 hours, budget within 35 days, and quarterly financial reports. Councilmember Matarrese stated for practical terms and Charter Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf CityCouncil,2016-09-20,26,"Beneficial Commercial Uses within Areas Zoned for Mixed Use. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) Not heard. (16-482) Consider Directing Staff to Review Enacting a Minimum Wage Increase in Alameda. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard. (16-483) Consider Directing Staff to Renegotiate the Terms of the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) Lease and Relocate/Modernize the Shelter Facility, including Addressing Funding. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 20, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf CityCouncil,2019-05-07,26,"Action Plan and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements, and Modifications at Funding Levels Approved by Congress. Stated the importance of the funding cannot be understated; outlined the services funding will help provide: Dan Ashbrook, Legal Assistant for seniors. Discussed Eden I&R services, including 2-1-1, which connects people to health, housing and human services: Alison DeJung, Eden I&R. Discussed a new State grant that will be used to assist with housing matters and an in- house attorney service: Erin Scott, Family Violence Law Center. Stated the funding is core to keeping Building Futures running; discussed outreach services and the warming shelter: Liz Varela, Building Futures. Thanked the City for its support; outlined ECHO housing services: Angie Larson- Hajjem, ECHO Housing. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Ayes; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes - 5. (19-282) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15533, ""Confirming the Park Street Business Improvement Area (BIA) Annual Assessment Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20, Changing the BIA Boundaries, and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Park Street BIA."" Adopted. Vice Mayor Knox White moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White inquired the process the City is utilizing to take a position on City-owned property. The City Manager responded the discussion has occurred internally; outlined two voting options; stated if tenants express support, he is willing to cast the votes versus returning to Council to decide how to vote. Vice Mayor Knox White stated expressed support for allowing the City Manager to cast votes if there is tenant support. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification. The Assistant City Attorney stated that she has consulted with outside counsel; other Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 7, 2019 25",CityCouncil/2019-05-07.pdf CityCouncil,2017-04-18,26,"issue is more important than the homelessness, mix used, and social development referrals, which he deems are frontline issues. Mayor Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1. Mayor Spencer moved approval of adjourning the meeting and bringing back the remaining referrals. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of tabling the remaining referrals. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion for reconsideration should be made by a Councilmember who voted against it. The City Attorney stated a motion for reconsideration would need to come from a Councilmember who would be changing their position. In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the City Attorney stated if Council votes to table the remaining items, the agenda is finished and Council can adjourn the meeting. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has kept the Housing Authority Executive Director waiting all evening; she would like Council to hear the Housing Authority item [paragraph no. 17-269]. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the Housing Authority referral [paragraph no. 17-269 and tabling the Climate Protection [paragraph no. 17-270 and Rules of Order [paragraph no. 17-271 referrals. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (17-269) Consider Directing Staff to Present the Steps for City Council to Return to Its Role as Board of Commissioners for the City of Alameda Housing Authority. Councilmember Matarrese made comments regarding the referral. The Housing Authority (HA) Executive Director made comments regarding the referral. Mayor Spencer inquired why the HA was initially separated from the City, to which the HA Executive Director responded the 2012 separation was done to put a fiscal and reputational firewall in place; stated the HA assets, which have large capital needs, could be dealt with solely by the HA and not impacted by the City constraints. Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to hear more about the plan; there is no accountability to an elected official; the buck stops at Council with housing and rent Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 April 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-01-05,26,"Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie agreed. Mayor Spencer stated that she also agrees. Councilmember Daysog stated that he also agrees. The Community Development Director stated one time only, existing tenants would be offered a one year lease the next time their rent is increased. Councilmember Oddie stated tenants do not have to accept. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is reasonable. Councilmember Daysog requested staff to explain the value. The Community Development Director stated the playing field would be level for new tenants and existing tenants; since the ordinance is just going into place, existing tenants would miss the one time opportunity to be offered a one year lease, which new tenants would receive. Mayor Spencer noted creating a lease has costs. Following a brief discussion of evictions, the Community Development Director clarified for in place tenants, the one-time offer of a lease would be done at the time of the first rent increase; noted landlords have indicated that they do not raise all tenants rent at the same time and do not like to have all leases expire at the same time. Mayor Spencer stated making the one year lease offer to new tenants is part of a new relationship; existing tenants on month-to-month leases being offered the option would tie up the property for a year; inquired why said action would not be a taking. The Community Development Director responded a landlord doing a rent increase indicates they are interested retaining the tenant; stated offering a one year lease would provide stability and the opportunity for a no cause eviction would be prevented for a year. Mayor Spencer inquired whether landlords would not do a rent increase if they did not plan on retaining the tenant for another year, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether rent increases would only be allowed one time per year. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated only allowing one increase per year is the next consensus item. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-15,26,"designation of Voting Delegate for the League's 2010 Annual Conference. Councilmember Gilmore nominated Councilmember Tam as the designated Voting Delegate and Vice Mayor deHaan as the alternate. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote. (10-304) Councilmember Matarrese stated on June 3rd, there was a Joint City/School District meeting; the subcommittee recommends Council to direct the City Manager to negotiate a master Joint Use Agreement with Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) to manage, improve, and maintain playing fields including, but not limited to, Encinal and Alameda High School fields; the purpose of the agreement would be to provide fields for continued school use and additional community use at large; Board Member Spencer raised potential health concerns which may be related to synthetic turf fields; joint efforts will be made to research the issue; the subcommittee discussed potential City participation with the Everett Street site, the former Island High School campus, to assist AUSD in obtaining money so that AUSD would not need to develop housing; an item was tabled until the Youth Commission survey results are obtained; rumor is that Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is going to apply commercial rates instead of municipal rates to school districts; the subcommittee is requesting that the City ensure continuation of the past policy regarding the School District getting municipal rates; the School District is having difficulty maintaining after school programs through a grant; having Recreation and Parks take the programs is a problem because of PERS requirements; the Interim City Manager has been requested to help with the issue; the subcommittee is recommending that the Council and School Board convene a meeting in the fall similar to the 2007 Joint Meeting; the next subcommittee meeting is tentatively scheduled for September 1st; provided a handout. Vice Mayor deHaan noted Councilmember Tam raised the issue of getting the School District to join in on waste recycling. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the subcommittee will discuss waste management and disposal for the schools. Councilmember Tam stated the School District needs to implement energy efficiency programs; Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) is willing to help secure grant funding. (10-305) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of California Cities Legislative Action Day on June 2nd, which was organized by diversity caucuses within the League; the event was very well attended; the State budget issue seems to be the major topic; the State is at a recessionary troth; the General Fund revenues for Fiscal Year 2010 are running slightly ahead of the State budget forecast; by the end of May, the State will see General Fund revenues about $300 million over forecast; a budget is being proposed to close the $19 billion gap; the budget compromise includes paying off cities for funds borrowed in order to minimize the debt service by approximately $5 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf CityCouncil,2006-06-20,26,"The Public Works Director stated that the City borrowed the equipment i work was performed by City staff. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he does not want to see crack sealing disappear. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated crack sealing needs to be funded. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he attended Alameda Power and Telecom's budget meeting; direction has been taken to lower the overall operating cost; management would like to reduce the operating cost even lower. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether or not other maintenance issues would be addressed. The City Manager/Executive Director responded the focus is to have a very comprehensive maintenance approach; stated staff is dedicated to applying funds to infrastructure. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he eagerly looks forward to the sidewalk and tree program. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the tree portion is critical. The City Manager/Executive Director stated the budget would come back to Council for approval on July 5. (06-338CC/06-037CIC) Discussion of City Attorney/General Counsel Legal Services and staffing options. The City Attorney/Lega Counsel provided a brief presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the analyst position for the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) update would have an end. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the initial part of the project has an end; stated an on-going effort would continue to monitor meeting the ADA Transition Plan's goals. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired why the work could not be contracted out. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 12 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,26,"Full Name Zip code Email Signature Patricia Barrameda 94501 andj@mail.com pcks Phylis Call 99501 net call Anish Chopen 94606 anish29chop14@gmail.com Alexanda Gunnell 94501 alixdes@hotmail 1.com IN ALEY Rogann 24607 Daniel Kim 94619 danlagagmail Adam Bahta Anita wong 94501 claimenong862@gmail.com XIS 94501 adiamwehia Adlam hotmaticoluk Ricky Dusing 794501 ricky/dung@yahoo.com Riss Nathan Were 94501 nathandwon@yahoo.com not TRAUL 91,501 a.TRADREE Ture Mathew Yuen 94502 myny22@gmail.com Moos Thai in 94580 Hunta90@gmail.com Tair Tsenguon Gansukh 94610 tsumpson@gmail.com Anganag Sandag 94706 Anganag-sandernanton 4 Mortinac 94610 amort17@gmail.com HMP VLADIMIR NOVAK 94609 Muda COM TONG 94607 Jason.Jong@live. June Ogden 94502 Clus Dah",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-21,26,"seems great; the matter can always be put forth by a Councilmember; Council can provide direction to have the matter return one month prior to the execution of the one year extension. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she accepts all of the amendments made by Councilmember Knox White. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has been persuaded on the matter; she has listened to many of the speakers over the year process and holds respect for the time, effort and passion put into the program; expressed support for the work of the Assistant City Manager; stated the process is iterative; thanked staff and AFS for further illustrating the program; expressed support for the pilot program; stated it is important to move forward with the program now; staff will take the discussion points made by Council into consideration when finalizing negotiations. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (21-594) Resolution No. 15820, ""To Apply for the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Measure AA Grant to Fund Planning and Design of De-Pave Park and Allocate $50,000 in Matching Funds, if Awarded.' Adopted. Expressed support for the work being done; stated many people have been instrumental in bringing the project to this point; DePave Park is an opportunity Alameda must take; the Park will be a unique resource for wildlife due to location, will have significant potential to sequester carbon and will be a beautiful place of respite and learning for all Alamedans; urged Council to vote in favor of the grant application and matching funding: Linda Carloni, Golden Gate Audubon Society. Expressed support for comments provided by the Gold Gate Audubon Society and for the matching funds; stated the matching funds will make a difference in the application; noted the City was previously unsuccessful in the attempt at grant funding for DePave Park; stated previous budget requests have been for $280,000 and a $50,000 request is a bargain: Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda. The Recreation and Parks Director gave a PowerPoint presentation. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined a newspaper article that she authored about DePave Park and the second chance at grant funding efforts. Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the resolution]. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 2021 22",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf CityCouncil,2013-07-23,26,"(13-371) The City Manager announced an upcoming National Night Out would be held on August 2nd. addressed an article regarding Marina View Towers; stated eviction notice were given in order to complete a seismic retrofit; announced the Joint City Council and Planning Board meeting would be held on September 25th. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an agenda would be posted, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. The City Manager stated Councilmembers would receive the agenda, which would also be sent to various regional agencies to ensure everyone sees what the City is doing. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (13-372) Consideration of Mayor's Appointment to the Rent Review Advisory Committee. Mayor Gilmore appointed Royl Roberts to the Rent Review Advisory Committee. (13-373) Councilmember Chen announced that he would be holding a National Night Out event at his home. (13-374) Councilmember Tam announced that she went to San Diego and was appointed to the Board of the League of California Cities. (13-375) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended a ribbon cutting at the Alameda County Family Justice Center celebrating a new pop-up library. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 July 23, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf CityCouncil,2018-04-17,26,"timeline and a date certain as to when the item will come back to Council. Councilmember Oddie stated Scenario 2 is more palpable; he understands the comparison issue, but Alameda has to stay cognizant that neighboring cities are the competitors in terms of minimum wage jobs for residents; it is good to look at similar demographically-based cities; time is running short; concurred with Councilmember Matarrese to look at other ordinances. Mayor Spencer stated the bigger chain stores, such as Starbucks, do not have the ability to change what they pay employees and have to pay minimum wage; she would like to find out how the big stores would be impacted; she would also like to know the impact on Alameda's small businesses and whether locally-owned businesses could increase the pay themselves. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would not differentiate between youth; young people are working to help support their families; Council is putting a lot on staff's plate; she would like to increase the minimum wage across the board now instead of doing phasing. Vice Mayor Vella stated the issue is minimum wage, not a living wage; Alameda is still below the living wage; she would like to move ahead with something; she prefers Scenario 2 which is a ramp up; the City does not get a pass; both small and large businesses are being treated the same. Councilmember Matarrese stated time is precious; Council should choose an ordinance to review and model after, instead of constructing a new one to have a shorter timeframe and Council could voting on the matter in September. The Acting City Manager stated staff will work as quickly as possible on the issue but, needs time to do the work; the focus is on the workers but it is important to get input from WABA and DABA as well; another component that needs discussion is enforcement; there is no enforcement mechanism right now. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not want to task staff with writing an ordinance; he agrees that community outreach is important. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to see community outreach, but does not want it to get in the way of or delay the item from coming back to Council in a timely manner. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to synthesize Council comments and select an ordinance from other cities that can be reviewed by a community outreach process and brought back to Council in September. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 April 17, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-17.pdf CityCouncil,2008-10-07,26,"business plan from SunCal. He expressed his concerns about calling the pile of data a business plan because there was no proposal, nor any conclusions drawn. Ms. Potter explained that SunCal did submit a draft business plan on September 19th, which was submitted in multiple parts, and do not exist together as one document. SunCal understands the Board's expectation of what the Business Plan document should entail and has promised that when they submit the final plan on November 19th, it will be bound in one single document with a narrative tying all the disparate pieces together as the Business Plan. Member Gilmore asked who gets to decide which party decides or determines when DE Shaw can remove SunCal as partner. Amy Freilich, Senior VP of SunCal, stated that as it's drafted currently, the Board would get notice from DE Shaw that would indicate that they have removed, for cause, SunCal as a partner. At that point, under the standard default provisions of the document, the ARRA would be entitled to declare default and specify the reasons for concerns and ask for a demonstration for what the cause was. If DE Shaw is unable to satisfy the ARRA with respect to that, it would be a default of the developer, and the ARRA would be entitled to terminate. DE Shaw would present their evidence that they were appropriately removing SunCal as partner. Member Gilmore further asked, under the operating agreement, SunCal can be removed for ""member issues"", would the process for determining default be the same? Ms. Freilich affirmed. Chair Johnson added that the only remedy would be to declare default and then terminate. Member Matarrese stated that the problem with this situation is, in layman's terms, it puts us back to square one where SunCal doesn't have any money without DE Shaw. He was concerned that DE Shaw knows nothing about developing Alameda Point, and that if we lose SunCal, we're at the end of the line -- we're stuck with a terminated agreement and no developer, and have to start the process all over again. Member Gilmore discussed that this scenario could happen at any point in the process, whether it's SunCal or DE Shaw; as you go forward, you always run the risk that something unforeseen could happen, and the project could not be completed and then you're back to square one. Alameda Point is a risk-inherent project. Chair Johnson agreed, stating that there's not 100% assurance to ourselves that something could happen; it's a very risky project and there's not way to prevent the risk. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 7 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-06-15,26,"Oakland decided to go with the Fire Department due to social unrest and people not being satisfied with the options; the Felton Institute can provide the whole group of services; the Felton Institute already does all of the services, just not in a single program; outlined services and staff service providers. Councilmember Daysog provided a scenario of a woman yelling for 40 minutes at 1:15 a.m.; inquired how the Felton Institute would respond and interact with Police. Mr. Penn responded immediately building a rapport with the individual is important; stated information would be gathered; the goal is to immediately deescalate the situation; intake questions and an assessment would be done to create a plan of care with a clinician. Councilmember Daysog stated the scenario is 1:15 a.m. Mr. Penn stated the Felton Institute would have a clinician responding. Mr. Gilbert stated the Felton Institute is very data driven, stays in contact with all clients and has client profiles; the person would be directed to support services. Councilmember Daysog inquired what the Felton Institute would do if the Police also show up. Mr. Penn responded there are variables; everything is done on a case by case basis; law enforcement would be told: ""We got it; the situations has been deescalated; the person is calm; law enforcement is no longer needed."" Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the third bullet point for Option 1 says that until the Fire Department gets 5150 certification, the Police will still have to come out. The City Manager responded the Fire Department is currently working with Alameda County regarding the 5150 requirement; stated if the programs started tomorrow morning, both would require the Police Department to respond to a 5150 call because in Alameda County, only a Police Officer can make the 5150 determination. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Felton Institute is also working on the 5150 requirement, to which the City Manager responded the City would work towards it with either option; he does not know whether either option has a better chance; the Fire Department has had communication with Alameda County. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Felton Institute is not able to handle 5150. Mr. Penn responded in the affirmative; stated the Felton Institute is working with individuals reentering from correctional facilities and meets with them prior to being in a situation where a 5150 is needed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2021 17",CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-02,26,"the rent an unlimited amount. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is no cap on rent increases. The Community Development Director stated the 5% is a trigger that would require initiating the RRAC process. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the cap is for a new tenant's rent, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the point of the policy was to disincentivize evictions to raise rent, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilemmber Oddie stated increasing by 25% no disincentive. The Community Development Director stated which is why staff is requesting direction on a cap. Councilemmber Oddie stated Mayor Spencer's suggestion is if a tenant received a rent increase in the last 12 months, then the new tenant could not get a rent increase for 12 months; if the tenant was eligible for a 5% increase, then the increase should be 5%. Councilmember Daysog inquired what if the in place tenant is evicted; would the landlord have to pay relocation benefits and cap new tenant's rent. Mayor Spencer stated according to the Code section the next time the rent could be increased would be when the previous tenant would have been eligible. The Community Development Director requested clarification on the percentage cap. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft recommended 5%. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether such a clauses exists in other cities. The Community Development Director responded most other cities with rent stabilization do not allow no cause evictions; stated the City is accommodating the requests from landlords while including limitations to address the important issue of economic evictions. Councilmember Daysog stated the landlord would be penalized twice; the landlords would have to pay the relocation benefits plus not be able to impose a rent increase. The Community Development Director responded that Capital Improvement Plans (CIP's) would be different grounds for eviction; staff is requesting direction on what the percentage cap should be. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2020-07-21,26,"Councilmember Vella responded in the affirmative; stated the motion includes removing the sign and organizing the community-led committee to provide input. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the denaming would be immediate. Councilmember Vella responded the addition of immediate can be added to the motion for clarification; stated going back to a generic original name is not in line with being anti-racist; there are few monuments named for BIPOC community members and women of Color; Council has an opportunity to do more than dename the park and to honor those who are typically not honored; expressed concern about the re-naming policy; stated there are issues with the naming policy; naming should be put to community-led committees; the matter is part of a larger conversation; expressed support for the matter returning prior to December; expressed concern about the Recreation and Parks Commission discussion; stated a process should be created where people can express interest in serving; there have been a number of people involved in the Rename Jackson Park movement who are from diverse communities and should be represented. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that Council is not being asked for recommendations about the new park name; expressed support for a committee outreach and selection process; stated that she is excited to hear new names. Councilmember Daysog stated Council must cast the net broadly when involving members of the community; this is an exciting and positive event for all of Alameda; expressed support for hearing the community-led committee process strategy including reaching out to Facebook and Nextdoor; the matter is something residents can turn back to view as an accomplishment during trying times. Councilmember Oddie stated the change is beyond time; expressed concern about renaming the park Alameda Park; expressed support for a name which reflects true and honest history; stated how stories and history are told needs changing; there are other places in Alameda that represent negatively; the matter is overdue; the sign needs to go; the name needs to go. Vice Mayor Knox White discussed a podcast; stated action must be taken in explaining changes and the harm done; expressed support for the resulting action not being just a renaming; stated there needs to be acknowledgement of the change in explaining what change occurred, why the change occurred and what the change reflects; there will be an approximate six month period of no sign at the park once removed; there are three upcoming parks; expressed support for changing the name of Godfrey Park; stated there will be additional matters related to renaming, which will be an opportunity for the City to engage citizens in thinking about how and when to rename something; noted there will need to be naming criteria; stated community engagement for naming should be considered; the opportunity should allow Council to question how committees are formed and to start developing a process; expressed support for the Recreation and Parks Commission, staff and the matter. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 4 July 21, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-01,26,"part of the equation. The Planning Services Manager responded commercial is not part of the density bonus plan; stated the density bonus ordinance would not govern where SunCal chooses to put densities. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the red outline on page 4 shows high density residential and commercial; the blue line is the buffer zone; that he has never seen anything similar in Alameda. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the WRT Study also analyzed a high range in density that was closer to SunCal's plan. The Planning Services Manager stated the WRT Study looked at the PDC; the key to making the overall project work for the City is that the 4,200 unit project would have to develop and fund a very successful transportation plan that would work for the entire island; the only way to get people from the 4,200 housing units through the tube would be to have existing residents chose to participate [in a transportation program]. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the WRT Study was commissioned by the City, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that her comfort level would increase if she had more information before deciding what the date should be; inquired whether information could be provided by the next Council meeting, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff would come back on June 15th with updates on the completeness of the application, financial issues, and transit oriented develop aspects. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated an update should be provided on the concept of density bonus and density transfer and how it works in light of the transit oriented development. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 4. Abstention: Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam - 1. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she needs more information before she is comfortable with setting a date. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 15 Community Improvement Commission June 1, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf CityCouncil,2018-03-06,26,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to have someone with knowledge of Alameda. (18-131) Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution No. 15319 Calling an Election to be Consolidated with the Statewide Primary on November 6, 2018 and Submitting to the Voters at That Election a Measure that Proposes to Amend the City Charter by Incorporating into the Charter Ordinance 3148 (Rent Stabilization Ordinance), with Certain Modifications,"" by Amending Section 3 (Ballot Question). Not heard. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (18-132) INFORMATIONAL ONLY - Annual Update on the Alameda Fire Department Fire Prevention Division Submitted by the Fire Chief. The City Manager stated the report can be read or return at a different Council meeting. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of accepting the report. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote. Ayes - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (18-133) March 6, Update on Tracking of Council Direction through the Referral Process. (18-134) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Information on the Citywide Dockless Bike Sharing Program and Return to Council with Additional Safety Requirements. Not heard. (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella) (18-135) Consider Banning Motorized Commercial Vehicles, Including Robotic Commercial Vehicles, from Sidewalks and Commercial Drone Aircraft Used for Deliveries. Not heard. (Councilmember Matarrese) (18-136) Consider Updating Housing Policy to Meet Current and Future Needs. Withdrawn. (Councilmember Matarrese) [Note: Under Agenda Changes, Councilmember Matarrese withdrew the referral.] COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (18-137) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Public Art Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 March 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-03-06.pdf CityCouncil,2005-05-17,26,"to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated priorities should be determined. The Public Works Director stated the department has had a reduction in staff; both the pothole and sidewalk crews had reductions and, as a result, were combined. Mayor Johnson inquired whether annual contracts included pothole and sidewalk repair. The Public Works Director responded an annual contractor is responsible for sidewalk repairs; Public Works employees are responsible for inspections, fillets, grinding and minor concrete replacement. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding the contractor's duties, the Public Works Director stated the contractor completes the backlog of permanent concrete repair in 300 to 400 locations. Councilmember Daysog stated residents would understand budget shortfalls for capital projects, but would not understand the City failing to have a plan, timeline and priorities. Councilmember Matarrese noted that he would prefer areas be paved over, rather than installing manufactured turf. (05-248) - ) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the meeting past 12:00 midnight. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Daysog stated there is probably $8 million undesignated in General Fund reserve; the City should change course if the reserve was built up at the expense of sidewalks and streets; the Council should consider allocating above $300,000; there needs to be a plan; the Council should receive a report on how to proceed. Mayor Johnson stated the City is reaching the point where something has to be done; people are upset about the condition of sidewalks and streets. Councilmember Matarrese stated a structural change should be made ; spending money upfront will save money later. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 26 May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf CityCouncil,2008-06-17,26,"The Recreation and Park Director stated Trust representatives have not indicated that any additional funding would be available but are willing to review how current funds are invested. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the community gets more per dollar for funding Park Directors than the Meyer's House. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how much the Fun Fair costs. The Recreation and Park Director responded the Fun Fair is funded through fees charged to participants; stated funding is also received through recycling grants; costs are a wash. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the proposal regarding the Art in the Park. The City Manager/Executive Director responded the proposal is to use money from the Pubic Art fund. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Art in the Park should be self- sustaining. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated major issues still exist regarding keeping current public safety levels; Council and the community want to have a safe community; she would rather buy more time for the Fire Department than the Golf Complex. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a gap would still exist if revenue raising options are placed on the November ballot and revenues start coming in January. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated overtime needs to be monitored; the vehicle replacement policy also needs to be reviewed. Councilmember/BoardMember/Commissioner Gilmore stated the vehicle replacement policy is a mechanism to buy time. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the issue would be understood better when the vehicle replacement policy comes back; keeping vehicles longer might be possible. Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a lot of phone calls and emails have been received regarding not cutting public safety and increasing staffing levels; maintaining current Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 16 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf CityCouncil,2010-05-04,26,"Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether SunCal can make a commitment [on numbers]. Mr. Brown responded that he will meet with staff tomorrow; stated an answer should be provided by Thursday or shortly thereafter; that he suspects the number will not total $9 million. (10-214 CC/ARRA/10-28 CIC) Staff Reimbursement Account The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development gave a brief presentation. (10-215 CC/ARRA/10-29 CIC) May 10th Project Scoping Meeting - Planning Board The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development gave a brief presentation. AGENDA ITEMS (10-216 CC/ARRA/10-30 CIC) Recommendation to Accept the Third Quarter Financial Report. Continued to May 18, 2010. ORAL REPORTS (ARRA) Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative - Highlights of April 1 Alameda Point RAB Meeting Member Matarrese stated the Board could read the summary from Peter Russell since he did not attend the meeting; RAB and ARRA meetings would be held on Thursday. ARRA BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (ARRA) The Interim Executive Director stated the California Redevelopment Association (CRA) received a less than favorable ruling; the City would be cutting a very large check in the amount of $4.4 million; the check is due to the County on Monday. Chair Johnson stated a copy of the check should be provided to the newspaper in addition to a press release. Board Member Gilmore stated a nasty letter should be sent along with the check. Board Member deHaan requested that staff research whether the redevelopment money [taken by the State] would go to the schools. The Interim Executive Director stated the total amount of redevelopment funds [from all cities] is barely $5 billion out of a $20 billion to $24 billion [State] deficit. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community 9 Improvement Commission May 4, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf CityCouncil,2006-09-05,26,"Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of allowing the Rutledge's to attempt to provide documentation regarding Social Security employment status and to have staff perform an evaluation based upon projected income from March 2006 to March 2007 to determine whether or not the Rutledge's fit into the income category for a five-person household. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the Social Security Administration income would be frozen if there were no more overtime. Commissioner Gilmore responded the income would be for overtime earned up until September 30, 2006; overtime would be zero from October 1 though March if the Social Security Administration] letter were submitted. Chair Johnson inquired what happens if a letter is not received, to which Commissioner Gilmore responded the Rutledge's would not qualify. Commissioner deHaan requested a caveat be added to the motion requesting documentation on the added dependent; inquired whether the documentation is on record and validated. The Housing Development Manager responded the dependent has been accepted. Commissioner deHaan stated that he wants the dependent validated and the Social Security [letter regarding overtime) validated by the [Social Security] Finance Director. Commissioner Gilmore suggested that the requirement be that the letter comes from someone in authority. Mayor Johnson suggested that the language state ""the appropriate person"" and staff could get the information from said appropriate person. Legal Counsel stated real information is being requested; Peralta College income needs to be counted for the fall and into 2007; staff does not have said information. Chair Johnson requested that the motion include that the Rutledge's provide all necessary documentation to provide staff with actual information. Commissioner deHaan requested a caveat be added into the motion Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 7 September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf CityCouncil,2015-01-20,26,"Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 1:23 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission January 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-20.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,26,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2017-04-12,26,"ITEM 2-B COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES MEETING MINUTES OF Wednesday, April 12, 2017 6:30 p.m. Susan Deutsch: I just want to let the commission know that I am not going to be available for the Spring Festival because my son is graduating medical school so I'm going to be in Wisconsin that weekend. Sorry. I've been looking forward to this. S?: Congratulations. Beth Kenny: Let's move on to staff communications 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Kerry Parker: I keep interjecting with my staff communications so I think you've heard a lot from me tonight. The Public Works Department will assist this Commission in changing its name. As I say, it might take a while because I'm dedicated to other things for the next couple of months, but as I speak about it with my administrative staff, it's something that we could probably incorporate into our workload. I just wanted you to know that about urgency, I wish for you to not have an urgent feeling about it, but other than that, we can get it moving. I made the mention about Earth Day which is lovely, but I think that for any event planning if you need my assistance in getting a contact or something like that I'd be happy to get it for you. I am about to fill out applications for banners in the month of October for the CDI banner. We have two weeks that are open to us. I've got the Commission on those weeks, it's a week over on Webster and a week at Central and Oak. Park Street's totally taken for all of October. So I just wanted to mention that. But usually, I'm going to give you a contact and pass it off to you. So just be ready for that. I can make a quick list at times, but usually, I have to be pulled in another direction for the other work that I do. I had another thing I wanted to mention and I can't think of it. I'll forward it to the group when I remember what I was just about to say. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS Beth Kenny: Thank you, Kerry. Now we move on to announcements. Does anyone have any announcements they would like to make? Why don't you do that? Jenny Linton: I'd just like to announce that April is Autism Awareness Month. That was mentioned to the City Council earlier this month. It was a proclamation at the City Council earlier this month. Thank You. Beth Kenny: Thank you, Commissioner Linton. Arnold Brillinger: I was just wondering on that should there be a suggestion or recommendation from this commission to proclaim April as Autism Awareness Month? Beth Kenny: There was a proclamation that the City Council did. We had a former commissioner who accepted the proclamation on our behalf, Jody Moore. She has done a lot of work in the autistic community. Is that what you were looking for? Arnold Brillinger: No, I was looking for, should we next year make a recommendation? They're 05/24/17 Page 26 of 29",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2017-04-12.pdf CityCouncil,2020-06-16,26,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY-JUNE 16,2020--6:59 P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:09 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmember Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom] Absent: None. AGENDA ITEMS (20-394) Consider Amending Sunshine Ordinance Section 2-91.4 (f) Pertaining to Special Meetings. (Counclimember Vella) Councilmember Vella questioned how notice of special meetings can be provided to make people aware; noted Council is aware of special meetings, but not everyone else; expressed support for the Open Government Commission (OGC) weighing-in on the matter and providing suggestions; stated that an option would be to have the special meeting agendized and noted on the regular agendas or announced 12 days in advance to give people sufficient time. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the OGC will review for Council consideration. Councilmember Vella responded that since the OGC is meeting soon, there will likely be input; stated since the Commission is already looking into the Sunshine Ordinance, now is a good time to review special meetings and have the matter return to Council. Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for sending focused direction to the OGC on special meeting noticing and to consider how to deal with urgent [emergency] meetings; stated the OGC can provide recommendations in an expeditious manner. Councilmember Oddie expressed support for input from the OGC and for consideration of Mr. Foreman's suggestions. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he would like recommendations on legal noticing requirements; expressed support for input from the OGC on notification guidelines, such as channels, which must be used for all meetings. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the OGC to consider the reasons for calling special meetings; the reasons for special meetings can vary; noted a special meeting is being held June 17; stated enough time to allow input from the public and deliberation from Council is needed without items being tacked onto a regular meeting which might already go late; noticing and uniformity is important; not all special meetings are necessarily equal; transparency and access to meetings also means not having meetings run late. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 1 June 16, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-16.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-05,26,"whether a grant program can be opened for those in the three highest language categories; stated the outreach will be very useful; the grant application process does not work when applicants are submitting via Microsoft Edge; expressed support for adding language stating: ""please do not use Microsoft Edge;"" stated the response to the program has been tremendous. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the deadline is May 7th, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the City could work with a gofundme.com campaign; inquired whether the City should put money into WABA's gofundme.com campaign. Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the negative; stated there is interest in starting an Alameda Business gofundme.com campaign; should the City promote the campaign, with a list of 190 possible applicants, the following businesses would be considered to receive funding after the grant fund cutoff; noted little staff time would be used; stated work and fundraising would be from the private sector. Councilmember Vella expressed concern about changing the criteria; expressed support for changing the criteria if a second round of applications are done, prioritizing businesses that have taken a harder hit in the potential second round, and conducting a lottery; noted many financial issues for businesses are related to cash flow; expressed support for the City loaning money to the program, and pursuing public/private funds, which look at grants, non-profits and different donors; stated a gofundme.com campaign would be appropriate; she would like to consult with the City Attorney's office to further understand the legality of collecting and administering funds; expressed support for promoting the opportunity on social media and websites; noted individual gofundme.com campaigns have been successful; stated that she would like to get to businesses that may not have the same social media following as others; expressed support for looking at businesses with multiple locations in the criteria for the next round; stated there are daycare providers and preschool operators, which have multiple locations and larger staff that should remain operational; expressed support for keeping businesses operational; stated daycare and preschool are important and should be included for eligibility. Councilmember Daysog stated the $600,000 being invested by the City represents a substantial amount of taxpayer dollars; some entities might not survive; there is risk involved; the risk is worth taking; the times are not ordinary; Council is making a reasonable and prudent decision; expressed support for the item, and the City Attorney's office protecting Council from outstanding legal issues which may arise from the use of gofundme.com; stated the amount of responses is a good indication that business communities are struggling. Councilmember Oddie expressed support for the item, finding more funding if possible and the exploration of gofundme.com campaigns; expressed concern about payments over $5,000; stated that he would support different criteria if there is another round of Special Meeting Alameda City Council 5 May 05, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-05.pdf CityCouncil,2022-02-15,26,"The City Attorney responded staff can look into the requirements and provide response in writing; stated staff's position has been explained by the Recreation and Parks Director. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated parents have to be present with children for kindergarten swim; the hours are not always accessible for working parents; expressed support for staff returning with different options; stated the City has many good resources and should get more people involved. Councilmember Daysog stated that he learned to swim at the Encinal High School pool; swimming pools are a vital part of the social fabric; ASPA has been around for decades and has provided good work; discussed the desire for community pools starting in the 1930s and 1940s; stated the ASPA pool project was in the late 1940s to early 1950s; discussed racist histories related to pools; stated pools have provided an incredible service; good service should be rewarded; encouraged staff to work with ASPA to understand constraints; stated ASPA has operated for many years and understands what works best; expressed support for modifying areas which need collaboration, including the swimming times and parents being present; stated the City should work with ASPA within the current system to ensure vital services are provided; the City can show flexibility in the lifeguard matter and meet ASPA halfway; the fee system in place for ASPA should be discussed; expressed concern over stopping negotiations; stated the partnership should continue. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the City showing flexibility on the lifeguard matter; stated staff should return with more specifics on the topic. Vice Mayor Vella stated the City must do its utmost to ensure that the minimum requirements are upheld and that a safe environment exists; she would like staff to return with the proposals presented in the staff report; expressed support for opening the matter up to include expanding the days and hours of access; stated pool information needs to be presented better and be more accessible on the ASPA website; expressed support for weekend hours being open to the public; noted only members are able access the pools on the weekend; stated that she likes the idea of an electronic system and the proposal of City approval of policies and procedures; expressed support for public access on weekends, including drop-in options for all lessons; stated the City does not offer enough swim lessons and many lessons fill up quickly; she would like the ASPA lessons and free swim expanded; she supports an online advance reservation system; the system would allow the City to track and better understand the demand and interest; expressed support for highlighting the ASPA pools information on the City website; stated that she would like to see better signage. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for ASPA volunteer options being presented. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to ensure staff maintains the intention of keeping ASPA as the provider for the pools; the City should allow flexibility on ASPA matters; good work should be rewarded; ASPA has provided fabulous work for the community; the City should work with ASPA and allow ASPA leadership to continue; Alameda is special in having a volunteer organization; it is possible that the City needs to work on improving its swim programs costs; the City should look at the matter holistically and find improvements for both. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Recreation and Parks Director provided extensive work related to fee increases; inquired whether additional direction is sought from staff. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 15, 2022 24",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf CityCouncil,2009-10-20,26,"housing funds set aside could be used. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether set aside funding would most likely be used. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated there is no requirement to use the funds or otherwise help or subsidize an applicant's affordable housing development. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the funding has been used in the past. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded sometimes yes, sometimes no; stated the Grand Marina development inclusionary housing was provided with no subsidy from the City; one of the causes of action against the City in the Collin's lawsuit was the failure to have a density bonus ordinance; State law is not a model of clarity; staff has attempted to make the ordinance more user friendly. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with adopting a density bonus ordinance but ensuring that the ordinance works well is important inquired whether the State ordinance is used if the City does not adopt its own density bonus ordinance. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded State law requires the City to adopt the State's ordinance by reference. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City is better off adopting a density bonus ordinance tailored to the community. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel reviewed the one hundred-unit scenario. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether a twenty-unit condominium could be built if the requested waiver relates to Measure A. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the developer would need to request a waiver, not a concession or incentive; stated a Measure A waiver could not be granted unless the developer could prove that the project would be physically precluded from using the density bonus without the waiver. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether concessions and incentives have limits, but waivers do not, to the City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-20,25,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there have been multiple proposals and categories; noted one of the proposals listed wireless hotspots at $50,000; inquired whether the matter is a stand-alone item. The Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the project is one of the lower hanging fruit; however, it will be impactful. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the hotspots are important; requested clarification about $18,700 for the service wireless lending hotspot. The Assistant City Manager stated the program would be delivered by the Library; the City would have 30 hotspot devices; a household can be powered by one hotspot device at no cost; the process is similar to checking out a book; the program will fund the service. Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the locations of the wireless hotspots. The Assistant City Manager stated the projects are part of the Library program; the broadband system would allow the City to create a network across the City and create a hard-wired internet system allowing an increase to internet speeds across the community; wireless hotspots can be adapted to the broadband system; there is a lending program through the Library, both hardwired and wireless infrastructure comes with the overall broadband program; all items are tied to the Smart City project whether through a lending system or physical improvements and infrastructure; the project is part of a broader effort to improve connectivity across the community. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the broadband item is listed under the $6 million Master Plan. The Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the broadband Smart City program includes a fiber network across the City and WiFi within the business districts; the system will be both in and above ground to improve connectivity across the community. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the $50,000 and the $18,700 could be used without the broadband Smart City program, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for consideration of the $68,700 to help people with internet access; stated that her preference is for the $6 million Smart City Master Plan. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for Councilmember Herrera Spencer's recommendation; noted there are two tranches in order to help prioritize immediate Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 18",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf CityCouncil,2007-01-16,25,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 16, 2007 - -6:00 p.m. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (07-018) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases One. (07-019) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9 ; Name of case: Attari V. City of Alameda. (07-020) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators : Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations : Alameda City Employees Association and Police Association Non- Sworn. Not discussed. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council received a briefing from the City Attorney and no action was taken; regarding Existing Litigation, Council received a briefing and gave direction to the City Attorney. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-24,25,"that he would consult with staff and report back. Councilmember Oddie noted Community Commercial (C-C) abuts neighborhoods as well. The Economic Development Manager noted any zoning change would go to the Planning Board prior to coming to Council; inquired whether the dispersion requirement should be modified for dispensaries. Mayor Spencer responded that she thinks the dispersion requirement needs to be modified. Councilmember Oddie stated that he would be okay with modifying the requirement once there is a dispensary on both ends of town. Mayor Spencer stated Councilmember Oddie does not want a modification at this time. Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmembers Matarrese and Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for not making any modifications at this time. The Economic Development Manager inquired whether adult use should be allowed. Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like staff to bring back a proposal for discussion. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is a tentative yes, to which Councilmember Oddie responded that he thinks it needs to be done sooner rather than later, so that is a yes. Councilmembers Matarrese and Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for not allowing adult use at this time. The Economic Development Manager inquired whether the cap on the number of dispensaries should be increased. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the current cap is two, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer stated the cap of two is a deterrent; stated that she would support allowing four dispensaries Councilmember Oddie stated that he would support four dispensaries with the dispersion to require one on both ends of town. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf CityCouncil,2012-06-19,25,"CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (12-332) The City Manager announced that two members of Council provided potential frequently asked questions regarding pension and labor issues, for a total of 16 questions ; requested the remaining Councilmembers submit questions. Councilmember Johnson suggested the City Auditor and City Treasurer be invited to submit potential questions. The City Manager agreed to do so. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (12-333) Dr. Carol Gottstein, Alameda, discussed the June 6th minutes and requested to view the A&B Tow contract. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (12-334) Councilmember Tam made announced that she attended a League of California Cities meeting on June 14th ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned themeeting at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf CityCouncil,2019-03-19,25,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the budget reviewed from a fiscally conservative side; there are other unfunded liabilities; she would like every vehicle purchased for the City's fleet to be an Electric Vehicle (EV) if possible. The Finance Director continued the presentation. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the $7.9 million came from a one-time amount resulting from the agreed upon formula, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative and continued the presentation. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the risk equity distribution. The Finance Director outlined the distribution payments. The Interim City Manager noted the insurance pools use an actuary. The Finance Director continued the presentation. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about capital costs, who will maintain and repair the proposed modular restroom at Alameda Point. The Recreation and Parks Director responded all maintenance will fall under the Recreation and Parks Department. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the new restrooms would be used in lieu of the Alameda Point Gym restrooms to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Recreation and Parks Director responded the modular restrooms will be in addition to the existing restrooms; stated the modular restrooms are meant to supplement. Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to have the line items for Public Works and safety personnel working at special events, parades and festivals included. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired the process for adding items to be considered in the budget. The Finance Director responded Council decisions will be incorporated either in the upcoming budget item or brought back as a separate item. Councilmember Vella inquired if the cost of pool repairs is included in the mid-year budget, to which the Finance Director responded in the negative. The Recreation and Parks Director stated the cost is still unknown. The Human Resources Director continued the Power Point presentation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf GolfCommission,2018-02-15,25,"Corica Golf 2018 PREVIEW Annual Plan 2018 Rounds & Revenue Projections - North Rounds 30,000 South Rounds* 39,000 Mif Par-3 Rounds 21,000 *Total Rounds 90,000 Total Facility Revenue $2,882,000 Projections currently assume a May south course reopening but are subject to change based on actual opening date. Rounds on North projection reflect expected impact from opening of South Course. 21",GolfCommission/2018-02-15.pdf CityCouncil,2022-03-01,25,"Councilmember Daysog stated that he will support the motion; the motion is in line with trying to work things out with different perspectives of landlords and tenants; two years of no rent increases is not sustainable for many; the proposed motion is reasonable and has middle- ground. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (22-147) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager or Designee to Execute a First Amendment to the Lease with Park Street Wine Cellars, Inc., a California Corporation, for Approximately 700 Square Feet of Retail Space in the Historic Alameda Theatre Located at 2315 Central Avenue, Suite 122, to Provide Six Months of Rent Deferral with a Three-Year Repayment Period. Continued to March 15, 2022. (22-148) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager or Designee to Execute a First Amendment to the Lease with Play House, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Doing Business as Director's Cut, for Approximately 1,850 Square Feet of Retail Space in the Historic Alameda Theatre Complex, Located at 2319 Central Avenue, to Provide a Six-Month Rent Credit and a Rent Reduction. Withdrawn and not heard. (22-149) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget; and (22-149 A) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule to Add the Classification of Street Light Maintenance Technician; Amending The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Salary Schedule to Remove the Streetlight Technician; Upgrading Two Maintenance Worker Il Positions To Streetlight Technicians, Effective March 12, 2022. Continued to March 15, 2022. (22-150) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Report on the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP) and the Annual Report on Transportation. Withdrawn and not heard. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (22-151) The City Manager discussed the removal of the indoor mask mandate, the City's 4th of July parade and the Point in Time Count. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (22-152) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (22-153) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2022 23",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf CityCouncil,2019-07-16,25,"Councilmember Daysog for a civil discussion. Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not believe the City of Alameda is ready to move on yet; the recommendations will allow healing to begin. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the process takes time, but an important first step has been taken; Council has taken responsibility. *** Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 10:49 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:57 p.m. *** *** (19-445) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a vote is needed to consider a new items after 11:00 pm suggested hearing the three remaining regular items [paragraph nos. 19-446, 19-447, and 19-448 not the referral [paragraph no. 19-450]. Councilmember Vella requested the speaker time limited be reduced to two minutes. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (19-446) Selecting a Development Team for the West Midway Project and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement (ENA) with the Selected Development Team. The Redevelopment Project Manager gave a brief presentation. Stated the Main Street Plan was developed two years ago; it is time to move forward; expressed support for Alameda Point Partners: Karen Bey, Alameda. Outlined the qualifications of Alameda Point Partners: Joe Ernst, Alameda Point Partners. Stated a Request for Proposals should be taken off the table; all four developers are capable; the questionnaire should only be done if the process is not delayed: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative. Continued outlining Alameda Point Partners' qualifications: Bruce Dorfman, Alameda Point Partners. Councilmember Oddie stated development does not always happen quickly; outlined a Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf CityCouncil,2015-01-21,25,"noted there are 10 members of the public present. The City Attorney stated staff pulled together a series of resolutions and ordinances that were adopted by previous City Councils addressing how business should be conducted; one of the resolutions references using Roberts Rules of Order as a guide; people use a condensed version of Roberts Rules of Order; if Council wants to establish a subcommittee, said things could be considered; the idea tonight was to review what is being done and determine if what is being done complies with previous resolutions and ordinances; guidance could be provided about where the Council wants to head and the desired way in which to proceed; staff could return with something if Council provides guidance or a Council subcommittee could be appointed; the Council can change ordinances and resolutions. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether there is a problem that is trying to be fixed; stated there has been a progression, for example Oral Communications is now at the beginning of the agenda and at the end if the speakers could not fit into the allotted 15 minutes; that she would be hesitant to change things, such as the order of business and meeting start times, because the procedures work well now and have been thought out by a number of Councils; she tries to be mindful of how much is being requested of staff; the rules of order could benefit from being consolidated, perhaps by a rules subcommittee; Council should be mindful of staff's time when considering scheduling Special Meeting Alameda City Council 25 January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf CityCouncil,2021-10-19,25,"Mr. Morales stated the GFOA has a warning on its website which states: ""Do not issue pension obligation bonds;"" a number of policies are designed to be written for the entire country; the City's financial sophistication is different from anyone else; the GFOA policy is written with cities which might not have high financial sophistication; the information is important because each plan, State law and funding level is different; the CalPERS system is different from the County of Alameda, the State of New Jersey, Illinois or Minnesota; the GFOA writes one universal policy to cover the nation; the financial circumstances of each agency in the country are different; UFI believes a number of the circumstances have been addressed; the most disconcerting part about the GFOA is the advisory not to issue POBs without any recommended alternative options provided outside of using reserves; Council should feel free to adhere to the GFOA advisory; however, the points and counterpoints mentioned by the GFOA should also be considered; the matter is complex and has some downsides, which include equity risks; the answer is not easy; doing nothing has a detrimental impact on operations going forward; the projected operating deficit has to do with increasing pension costs and a shortfall over the next four to five years; the deficit is due to an increase in UAL payments. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the current economy, stock market and low interest rates are sustainable and factors into the matter. Mr. Morales responded rates are at historic lows, which makes the matter compelling; stated the discount rate has lowered; he does not believe the growth will continue on a long-term basis; a second industrial revolution is causing some tremendous economic growth; cities cannot continue at 21.3% growth and outrun the problem; the orders are taking more measured steps and being realistic; outlined gains and downsides; stated Council must consider the downside; Councilmember Daysog is correct in his statements about risk; there are things the City can do to prepare itself; the POB is not a panacea and is not without risk; Council should take the time to understand and think about alternative options; doing nothing is not ideal; a plan to address the matter is needed. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not plan to support the matter; she would have liked the City Auditor and Treasurer to have had more time to speak; it is premature to proceed at this time; the City needs to look at both sides of the equation; she would like to hear from community members; expressed support for a workshop; stated the matter is a huge risk; expressed support for Councilmember Daysog's comments; stated the comments help provide further understanding; the City is rushing through a huge risk; expressed support for the matter returning with more information; noted cities have lost a lot of money on POBs; the examples of losses have been minimized in the report. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification from the City Manager on how he envisions the process going forward. The City Manager stated the City will start the court process and simultaneously come back with a Council work session and public meetings; the policies can be refined; staff will return to Council after the court decision and bring back a full recommendation; there is risk associated with the matter; the risk of doing nothing will cost roughly $530 million; the POB solution helps. In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Manager stated the timeline is about four to six months; court processes can cause delay; four to six months has been the average time in other communities. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf CityCouncil,2021-03-16,25,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification that Council would be supporting hiring up to 88 Officers; she would like specific training for the public on detentions and consensual contact; the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a Know Your Rights program; 100 Black Men in Oakland did a great program; she would like a public education component; she would like to hear from the Police that they are getting the training on detention and when people are free to leave; she would like to know whether other Councilmembers agree. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the Crime Analyst position with the concept of where the position lives to be determined; she also supports the Steering Committee recommendation to continue having 88 Officers in the budget; inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer would support posting a link on the City's website to the ACLU Know Your Rights program for the public. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the affirmative; stated the ACLU has a lot of information online and also have volunteers who teach the public; she is not sure if 100 Black Men in Oakland paid anyone; there could be an ongoing educational component; the City could work with the Schools; she would like to have it added. Councilmember Knox White stated it is a good program; that he is a little uncomfortable tying it into the conversation; he knows the program is not about how to keep from being arrested; it is about knowing your rights; he is not clear about the ask or cost; questioned whether the Public Information Officer is able to arrange four events per year; stated perhaps the Police Crime Prevention Unit could bring the ACLU in as well; it is worthwhile; he does not understand what staff is being asked to do. Councilmember Daysog stated Councilmember Herrera Spencer has a concept similar to the previous motion asking staff to return with information to flesh out the concepts. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands the concept but is not sure it belongs in this particular set of recommendations. Vice Mayor Vella stated the concept seems a little outside what is being contemplated; she would like to focus on what is before Council; the current focus is what the City can do internally and which services the City can provide, not public training; she does not quite understand the request. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not hearing three votes in support of the ACLU training being included at this time. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of items 1, 3, and 4 in the second set of the Steering Committee recommendations. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Councilmember Knox White specify each item. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2017-11-07,25,"The Community Development Director stated the ordinance regulating cannabis was also distributed to Council. The City Attorney stated there needs to be three votes on the entire ordinance. Councilmember Oddie stated only several things need to be changed: labor peace, food, provision about local ownership, the distance and redlines which staff provided to Council. The City Attorney stated one cultivation permit is allowed and there was discussion about changing it two permits. Mayor Spencer stated there were not enough votes for two permits. The City Attorney stated the next section is labor peace; inquired who is voting in favor of the requirement for labor peace being 10 employees, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella raised their hands. The Community Development Director stated the operational radius is the next provision. Vice Mayor Vella read the proposed language: ""The distance shall be measured via a path of travel from the nearest door of the nearest sensitive use to the nearest door of the dispensary/retail/cultivation."" and strike the rest of the sentence. The Assistant City Attorney inquired whether the word foregoing can be added before sensitive use, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Vella stated the second paragraph after sensitive uses should read: ""measured via a path of travel from the nearest door of the nearest foregoing sensitive use to the nearest door of cannabis business.' Mayor Spencer stated Section e does has already been addressed. The Community Development Director stated staff will sync the onsite consumption language to be consistent with the smoking ordinance. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council agrees with the proposed language for Section f regarding onsite consumption, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft Matarrese, Oddie and Vella concurred; Mayor Spencer stated that she will not vote. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would like to leave in the wording community benefit; stated that she would prefer to strike the words. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf CityCouncil,2017-10-17,25,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the question is how many sister city relations the City of Alameda can afford to have due to limited staff and resources; inquired what the measurable results are of the sister city visits and how they relate to Alameda; suggested involving the Alameda Chamber of Commerce; stated that she would be conservative with the amount of staff time on the sister city program. Stated ASCA is very pleased with the guidelines and the support receive from staff; outlined different groups that support the sister city program: Michael Robles-Wong, Alameda Sister City Association (ASCA). Discussed the importance of having sister cities; stated sister cities promote peace through respect, understanding and cooperation: Cynthia Bonta, ASCA. Councilmember Matarrese stated the guidelines have been needed for some time; the resolution will help sustain sister city relationships; that he strongly supports the resolution and reporting back on the progress. Councilmember Oddie stated the City of Alameda needs to be able to show delegates the same courtesy and attention as they show Alameda representatives on visits; that he supports the resolution and is excited about the next sister city visit. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is ready to support the resolution. Mayor Spencer expressed concern with staff time and the lack of support from Council with scheduling conflicts; stated Council should be willing to accommodate the Mayor and other Councilmembers who are attending the trips to sister cities; discussed the importance of showing respect to other cities and reciprocating the work the sister cities do to welcome elected officials to their city; all flights are paid for by Councilmembers; she will support the resolution with the hopes that Council supports visits in the future; suggested at least one staff member accompany and support the elected officials on the trips; stated staff should conduct outreach to the Alameda Chamber of Commerce to have more businesses involved. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (17-639) The City Manager expressed excitement over the passage of Regional Measure 3 (RM3) and a slew of housing bills in which the Governor signed; stated the Governor also vetoed Senate Bill (SB649); gave a brief description of the SB649; discussed the lime bike launch; there are 300 bikes and will be 500 bikes in 5 weeks; the community give the bikes high remarks, with only a couple of concerns, such as dust particles making the bike's solar panels less efficient; announced a Black Panther Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2017 21",CityCouncil/2017-10-17.pdf CityCouncil,2006-09-19,25,"Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 4 and Redevelopment Authority, Community Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners September 19, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf CityCouncil,2021-05-04,25,"accordingly; staff ensured the deal for Alameda was at least as good as the deals that ACI and other companies were proposing out on the competitive market place; staff considered a switching cost in order to change contractors; the switching cost can be unpredictable and significant; there have been concerns about having a good partner that has brought the City through a number of changes, programs and services to get to the current status; with SB1383 coming in six months, there is a feeling that ACI will be able to get ahead of customer engagement; the City avoiding compliance issues if the contract expires and a new company is brought in is a big value; it is a policy issue for Council; however, staff has thought about the matter extensively as the deal had been vetted. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired which cities received a 20 to 30% increase. Mr. Hilton responded the City of Oakland was well over the percentage increase; stated the City of San Ramon, which uses the same bargaining unit as Alameda, received bids at 20 and 30%; the special district of Castro Valley received bids at 15 and 20%. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the rates are reflected in the chart on page nine. Mr. Hilton responded in the affirmative; stated Oakland and Piedmont recently re-did their contracts and are now the most expensive in the Bay Area. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not understand why Piedmont would be so high, which is likely an anomaly; the City of Oakland is a little higher than the proposed rates for Alameda; inquired the rate for the City of San Ramon. Mr. Hilton responded the City of San Ramon increased by 30%. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the increase depends over time; noted Alameda's rates have increased significantly over time; she would have liked to have seen more information and data in the presentation; outlined the increase of 6% per year since 2006; stated that she has received many complaints about trash not being picked up; noted people will call in and pickup continues to not occur; she is unsure whether she received the original survey; she would have liked to have seen the survey results; expressed support for dealing with calls of trash not being picked up. Vice Mayor Vella stated there has been a lot of requests for data; the matter previously came before Council and Council specifically asked certain things to be looked into by staff and prioritized services; growing needs relative to the industry have also been considered; noted former Councilmember Oddie presented updates from StopWaste relative to cost impacts on solid waste, recycling and compost requirements; CASA has weighed-in and is working with the City to ensure the City is compliant; data is present within the staff report and a lot of information has been attached to the report; Council may disagree with the data; there are significant costs relative to environmental goals set forth by the State; no matter who the City chooses to contract with, there will be increases relative to implementation of goals and meeting requirements of the CARP; many Councilmembers have been supportive of meeting CARP goals; Council must keep in mind the rates imposed and note that Alameda is different from other cities in terms of solid waste Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 May 4, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf CityCouncil,2020-06-02,25,"Councilmember Oddie moved approval of directing staff to bring back ballot language for the City Prosecutor and to add language related to the discretion of the City Prosecutor. The City Attorney stated the correspondence indicates the current language requires the City Attorney to prosecute all local law violations; noted proposed language would add State Law violations; stated the correspondence suggests adding the phrase: ""exercise the prosecutorial discretion"" due to the requirement of federal and State constitutional law. Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Vella stated it would be helpful for the public to have clarity related to the change; she would like clarification whether additional funding for the position will be needed; she has received questions asking why the City would prosecute versus the District Attorney. The City Attorney stated the existing City Charter can be read as authorizing or requiring the City Attorney to prosecute all local law violations; the proposed language would authorize the City Attorney to prosecute State law violations; earlier last year, Council authorized the City Attorney's Office to engage in the activity with the consent of the District Attorney; the intent of the ballot language is to memorialize the authorization to the extent the consent of the District Attorney is withdrawn; staff does not anticipate a need for additional staffing to do work which is already being undertaken. Councilmember Vella stated the item will need a robust communication plan with the community; many people do not understand the matter; engaging and informing the community will be difficult. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the Council should also decide which items will be put together. The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; provided an example of combining the cleanup language, with Council pay or City Prosecutor. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. Regarding Council pay, Councilmember Daysog stated the Subcommittee recommended staff return to Council with a discreet number; there have been concerns from residents; that he would not benefit from this matter and would only accept the current rate of pay; Council pay is earned based on the amount of work; expressed concern about the November 2020 ballot being loaded. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf CityCouncil,2022-02-01,25,"Vice Mayor Vella stated Councilmember Knox White's recommendation of having the Recreation and Parks Director bring the matter back to Council would suffice; she would like to note that Council has recommended the matter go through whichever processes seen fit prior to coming back before Council. Councilmember Knox White stated that he has proposed a motion with direction to staff, not a motion to take action; the direction indicates Council's wish that when the easements go forward, staff can see fit to move the fence when safety allows; Council is not taking action. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion is to have the matter return to Council at a future agenda date. Councilmember Knox White responded in the negative; stated that he does not want to see the matter return; Council has given direction on matters which are within the general scope of an item; the motion is general direction that Council would like to see the fence get moved when the easements are complete and safety permits; the motion keeps Council from getting into the administrative actions of the City. The City Attorney stated Council may always provide general direction on any agenda item; Council may give general direction; the referral rules are clear in that should Council wish to give specific direction, there are three choices; Council may direct staff to bring the matter back, take no further action or reject the referral; Council may provide general direction on any item. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be re-stated. Councilmember Knox White stated the motion is to approve the Council's wish that the fence be moved at such a time that the fence is setup for when the new easements are put in place and that those fences are erected as safety allows. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether budget is included in the motion, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the negative. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (22-091) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Previous City Council's Priorities at a Regular City Council Meeting. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 1, 2022 25",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf CityCouncil,2022-05-03,25,"residential and commercial zones; urged the matter be seriously considered: Dolores Kelleher, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS). Stated her neighborhood is dense and diverse; discussed the capability for more units in existing areas; expressed concern about building heights taller than three stories; stated the HE has more than enough places to provide housing throughout the City; urged Council to decide where new housing should go; questioned why the Bridgeside Shopping Center is off the list: Betsy Mathison, Alameda. Discussed RHNA numbers; stated any buffer is unnecessary; urged Council to focus on the 5,353 housing units; the amount is attainable through the current Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) process; there is no need to upzone R-2 through R-6 areas; urged Council to build to the requirement: Matt Reid, Alameda. Expressed support for height limits; stated that she supports smaller units in transit areas and the request to remove unnecessary blanket upzoning across residential neighborhoods; she disagrees with the proposal to include either Lum School or Thompson Field for future housing; urged Council to consider continuing public hearings: Carmen Reid, Alameda. Discussed the HCD letter attached to the staff report; stated the letter provides for a compliant HE which meets the RHNA obligation and fair housing without upzoning the R-2 through R-6 areas; questioned whether deletion of upzoning is not in compliance with fair housing law; stated upzoning all districts is overkill and manipulates the HE without voter approval: Paul Foreman, Alameda. Questioned why staff was not directed to =object to the RHNA numbers while 70 other cities submitted letters of objection; expressed support for an initiative prohibiting out of State developers from funding campaigns and building new infrastructure before RHNA units; discussed a bike and car bridge and spending State funds on infrastructure: Rosalinda Fortuna Corvi, Alameda. Urged Council to upzone Central Avenue and Webster Street; stated Webster Street is full of parking lots and one story buildings; expressed support for encouraging façade reuse; expressed concern about shopping centers being limited to five stories; stated not building high equals building out: Alex Spher, Alameda. Expressed support for the AAPS letter; stated more housing will be built and Alameda will be more dense; questioned how the City will go about adding more housing; stated the current HE overreaches with upzoning residential areas; expressed support for adding units, while keeping a livable City and the three story height limit; stated that she would add units to her property to help: Joyce Boyd, AAPS. Discussed Alameda Point; stated that she would like to challenge the position of Alameda Point's role in RHNA and urge staff and the Fair Housing Task Force to authenticate the methodology and update where needed; expressed concern about the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 3, 2022 21",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-27,25,"impressed with the work plan; staff has come a long way; the rainy day is not over; the $12 million [General Fund reserve] is in jeopardy the longer the economy stays as is. Mayor/Chair Johnson complimented staff for continuing to refine the budget and make the budget more transparent and understandable; stated the budget [format] gets better and better each year. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether all of tonight's Power Points would be posted to the website; further inquired whether a hard copy would be on file at the Library. The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded a hard copy is already at the Library; stated staff is figuring out how to technologically break the budget into smaller pieces. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated tonight's meeting has been the most productive meeting in a long time. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated a year's worth of planning, concepts, and drafted policies have culminated into something tangible; agendas should be very active in the next year. The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services requested that the Proposition 4 limit be adopted before the budget. Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. On the call for the question, the original motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (10-391 CC) Resolution No. 14483, ""Reappointing lan Couwenberg to the Housing Commission. Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (10-392 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Adopting a Report on the Collection of Sewer Service Charges on the Tax Roll for Fiscal Year 2010-2011. The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 25 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf CityCouncil,2010-04-20,25,"breakdown of the costs, to which Mr. Faye responded in the affirmative. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff was informed that there are costs that were not included in the escrow account. Mr. Faye stated that he does not have any problem providing any additional incurred costs that have not come from the escrow account. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan provided a handout outlining the various plans submitted; stated the Measure B plan has 4,500 homes; the modified plan shows the same density of 4,500 homes; [Measure B has] 3.5 million square feet for commercial; the density bonus is up 4.3 million square feet; inquired why the City went through Measure B and now SunCal is submitting something that has more than Measure B. Mr. Faye responded there are a couple of answers to the question assuming the numbers are correct; stated Measure B would never have been necessary had State law relative to promoting affordable housing with the corresponding density bonus been in place and had the City's Municipal Code been modified to address the promotion of affordable housing through density bonus; if State law and Alameda's changes arrived at a different time or if the ENA timeline were different, there never would have been an election; the density would have been at the discretion of the Council. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated references were made to density bonus in the Measure B dialogue, which is contrary to what Mr. Faye is saying. Mr. Faye stated the project proponent submitted signatures in September; State law changes went into affect shortly thereafter; the City implemented State law through changes to the Municipal Code in mid December. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he thought the density bonus State law was in place before. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the State density bonus law has been in place for a couple of decades; the City was a little late in adopting its own ordinance, which is completely consistent with State law. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated State law could have been invoked ten years ago; the City would need to comply because State law supersedes City law. Mayor/Chair Johnson requested clarification. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the State density bonus law has been in place Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 5 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf CityCouncil,2007-12-04,25,"delay in trying to get Clif Bar onto the site; conditions will change ; seventy-five percent of the piers are compromised. the recommended amendments accommodate changed conditions in a way that does not expose the City to additional financial obligations. Councilmember/Commissioner Tam moved adoption of the resolutions and introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated that she assumes that a future feasibility study would take into account the condition of the warehouse and piers and would be part of the question of whether or not the pier can be saved. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated new technology might be available in five years that would make pier replacement more cost effective; stated the feasibility study would address requirements to retain the building as well as the requirement to do what needs to be done to the pier. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that it is time to move the project forward; the delay was unfortunate; opening up the waterfront and shoreline is great BCDC would not approve building a pier over the water today; exposing more of the shoreline is good; inquired whether there is a timeframe for Clif Bar, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded fall of 2009. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that the phase is not going to be completely designed out within the next two to three years; his concern is how the waterfront office buildings are treated; he would be discouraged to see a five-story building flush on the shoreline; he hopes that the developer will look at other alternatives in the interim; the waterfront was always questionable and never thought to be something that could be saved; he is concerned with the amount of money that could be deferred from the project; he would like to see the money used in a better way to support the project and community. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (07-575 CC/07-056 CIC/ARRA) Recommendation to accept the Fiscal Year 2007 First Quarter Financial Report and budget adjustments. The Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 11 and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf CityCouncil,2015-11-04,25,"505 Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council November 4, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf CityCouncil,2011-02-15,25,"artificial and should be used for mandatory one-time expenses. * * (11-094 CC/11-020 ARRA/11-012 CIC) Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated departments would come in over budget at the end of the year and look to the General Fund if the $2.1 million is not used for projected overages. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated departments would need to explain why they are over budget; some of the $2.1 million is being used for mandatory expenses; the discretionary portion of the $2.1 million is probably $500,000. The Controller stated the discretionary portion is approximately $400,000. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Other Post Employment Benefits went up 11%; inquired whether the Police and Fire Departments are fine with the projected overtime budget. The Acting Police Chief responded that he is comfortable with the bottom line; stated overtime has been projected; the Police Department has had more overtime than normal due to injuries; the Superior Court closure has had an impact; a significant incident, such as a homicide, is out the Department's control. The Acting Deputy Fire Chief responded the Fire Department anticipates overtime savings because of the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) hiring. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the overtime budget for Police and Fire, to which the Controller responded overtime for Fire is $725,000 and Police is $400,000. The Controller stated overtime [overage] would be covered with savings in other categories. The Acting City Manager/Executive Director stated barring unforeseen major incidents, the projected overtime is a worse case scenario. Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated that she appreciates the heads up; the Council/Board/Commission would not have been happy hearing about projected Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 10 Community Improvement Commission February 15, 2001",CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf CityCouncil,2017-12-05,25,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) TUESDAY--DECEMBER 5, 2017--6:59 P.M. Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer - 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*17-711 CC/17-14 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC Meeting Held on September 19, 2017. Approved. (*17-712 CC/17-15 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Fourth Quarter Financial Report for the Period Ending June 30, 2017. Accepted. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk and Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Joint Meeting of the Alameda City Council And Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2017 1",CityCouncil/2017-12-05.pdf CityCouncil,2009-11-17,25,"The Planning Services Manager responded the reduction would not provide longer term housing but would make the inclusionary housing requirement within the City consistent; stated applying the 25% inclusionary requirement would automatically entitle applicants to the density bonus requirements plus concessions, incentives, and waivers; staff did not want density bonus concessions and waivers to be automatically triggered; by rolling the percentage back to 15%, the applicant would have to make more affordable units within the development. In response to Councilmember/Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the Supervising Planner responded any inclusionary housing units count towards the density bonus units; staff does not want to create a situation where someone would automatically be entitled to a density bonus plus concessions and waivers. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she likes the idea of caps; perhaps the Planning Board should be requested to look at particular items. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated one item would be open space; visuals should be provided in order to show what projects would actually entail. The Planning Services Manager stated visuals could be provided. Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents (In favor of ordinance) : Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) i Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society; Jamie Keating, Trailhead Ventures, LLC . There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he would like to send the ordinance back [to the Planning Board] ; the two most important points are: 1) separating pure residential from other projects; 2) setback and height caps cannot be arbitrary or non- technical; Fire Department pictures show the hazard that could be used as the rationale for setting a cap; if the ordinance is sent back to the Planning Board, it should be time critical so that the process can be finished. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf CityCouncil,2010-09-07,25,"Commissioner deHaan stated the Commission is not asking for a lot of detail; other elements need to be considered in order to be successful. Chair Johnson stated the Animal Shelter would be better off in another location. The Interim Executive Director stated that she has recommendations on where the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter could go; this year's budget has funds for a very extensive feasibility analysis for rebuilding, constructing, and relocating the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter; the process should not be started until the CIC knows what the property can be sold for in order to put more cash into the deal; the Commission's comments and Commissioner Matarrese's amendments to the ENA have seven different components which would be put into the ENA; staff would come back regarding getting consultants on board to start the feasibility analysis; the CIC does not have the cash or funds to buy property and build something; the cost estimate would be based on the type of building and landscape, as well as the physical relocation cost; staff has other recommendations for the Commission in terms of what could happen with Alameda Municipal Power; through an asset management strategy, the CIC could have more than enough to pay for the Animal Shelter and approximately 50% to pay for the Corporation Yard; a deal might be able to be struck in a DA to offset costs; the situation is sequential. Chair Johnson stated ensuring a benefit to the City is important in terms of the economy of scale. Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether a bunch of dominos need to fall in order to finance the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter relocation; stated the Commission has a sense of unease because the Interim Executive Director has a clear idea of where to move the Corporation Yard and costs; that she is not privy to the information. The Interim Executive Director stated that she needs to have some discussion regarding selling the property in order to validate numbers and theories; the cart is before the horse. Commissioner Gilmore stated Commissioner deHaan is asking for ballpark figures. Commissioner deHaan inquired how much two acres is worth to Warmington Residential. Michael McClellan, Warmington Residential, responded that he does not know until preliminary testing is done. Commissioner deHaan inquired how much two clean acres would be worth. Mr. McClellan responded approximately 20% of land value; stated the issue is that the property is small, irregular, and under bay mud; that he spoke to Pennzoil about the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community 7 Improvement Commission September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf CityCouncil,2010-03-16,25,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY--MARCH 16, 2010- -6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan convened the meeting at 6:10 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Board Members/ Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Note: Mayor/Chair Johnson arrived at 6:40 p.m. Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (10-107 CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Interim City Manager and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations: Alameda Fire Managers Association, Alameda Police Managers Association and Executive Management (10-108 CC/ARRA/10-12 CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: Alameda Point; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda, ARRA, CIC, SunCal, Navy; Under Negotiations: Price and terms of payment. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Labor, the Council received a briefing on the status of labor negotiations; no action was taken; and regarding Real Property, the Council / Board / Commission received a briefing from the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,25,"10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: President Lynch noted that numerous pieces of correspondence had been received, and requested that the writers confirm their facts before committing them to paper. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). President Lynch advised that Board member Mariani had left the meeting and would report on this item at the next meeting. b. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member Kohlstrand). Board member Kohlstrand noted that no further meetings had been held since her last report. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board Member Cunningham). Board member Cunningham noted that the Task Force met the previous Wednesday to review target values for common emission reductions. He noted that the next meeting would be held on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 at the Alameda Free Library. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Andrew Thomas, Sécretary City Planning Board These minutes were approved at the April 18, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 25 March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf CityCouncil,2008-06-03,25,"Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether the interest rate is fixed. The Finance Director responded the interest rate varies over time i stated everything is taken into account with an all in true interest cost. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated money would need to be found elsewhere if refinancing is not done; she does not view refinancing as a way to balance the budget. Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan stated refinancing would be a one-time fix and a deferral. The Finance Director stated the proposed refinancing was a potential solution for not having sufficient budget capacity to meet all needs. louncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether timing would be impacted if Council and the Commission decide to made a decision to go forward at the end of June. The Finance Director responded missing the August 1 call date for the Police Building might cost more money, but could be done. louncilmember/Authority Member Matarrese inquired how much is owed on the police bonds. The Finance Director responded $1.5 million; stated Library and Golf is 3.5%; 63% is for Library and 34% is for Golf. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated $1 million needs to be spent on renovating the driving range the City is still paying off the construction debt. Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated staff should look at paying early because there is no tax deduction for paying interest. The Finance Director stated the scenario could be reviewed; the net present value of the future debt service versus using the fund balance to pay it off can be reviewed. Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether major refinancing was done in 2002-2003. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 11 Financing Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf CityCouncil,2014-07-15,25,"apartment has not been painted inside except for once where the old landlord paid for the paint and I had to pay for the painters. My concern is that with the demand for housing and the proposed development of the del monte building just a stones throw away, my landlord will continue to raise the rents because of the willingness of people trying to move to the island to pay more than something is worth to move in. Being month to month and not on a lease, I fear that any day we can get another increase (that we won't be able to afford) in order for him to maximize his profits and because other people are willing to pay more. Knowing how the market has changed so quickly recently, my wife and I are terrified that we will then be unable to find affordable housing on the island and have to move somewhere less desirable. We are both small business owners trying to make something out of our lives. This is unfair. We couldn't afford to move anywhere else in Alameda or in a decent part of Oakland for that matter. We feel stuck and without options. Our landlord would be happy to have us leave because they can turn around and rent our $1000 one-bedroom for $1350 to new tenants I can't afford a private apartment for myself and my son in Alameda because I don't make enough money working as a teacher's aide for the school district. I'm concerned of future increases. I'm barely scraping by and an increase would cause me to find a smaller place or leave Alameda, which is something I don't want to do. I have lived here all my life. My husband and I are both on disability, we barely get $2k between the two of us. I'm not concerned about my rent increase. I understand that my landlord has expenses too. Our lease will be up in a few months are we are concerned about them raising the rent an unsustainable amount. I have heard horror stories about rents being raised by hundreds of dollars. My current landlord ha been completely fair and only raised the rent once in the past 5 years, my concern is if I have to find another rental in alameda I am completely priced out! Low supply + high demand = increasing rents. I've lived in the same address for 17 years. It's a 7 unit bldg. I don't have issues with the rent since that's the reason I've stayed here for yrs. Privately owned. It was 10.4 percent and they only gave me 30 days notice. I decided not to push back for a 60 day notice because I was afraid of retaliation. I am on a limited fixed income it is very stressful when my rent is increased. I have taken on cleaning the laundry room and handling the trash bins in lieu of a reduction in my rent because it was the only way to make ends meet. If it continues to increase I may have no place to go. Increases don't mean owners are taking care of apt bldg or inside of apt. Was told increase was due to people moving to area so the can charge more. I currently pay slightly more than 45 percent of my monthly income (net) on rent. I realize that this is partly because I work at a non-profit agency serving seniors and persons with disabilities, but since the Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015 7 www.RenewedHopeHousing.or enewedHopeHousing@gmail.com I Laura Thomas (510)522-8901",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-07-11,25,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday July 11, 2018 6:30 p.m. Jenn Barrett, Vice Chair: Yes, I didn't have anything from the Planning Board for this particular update. And then for the businesses, I got some contacts. Thank you, Beth, for providing that. I'm going to get in touch and hopefully have it start rolling before our next meeting. And then one other thing I wanted to bring up, when you were presenting, I was thinking about beach access. My aunt, we were in Cape Cod, and she's in a wheelchair, and they had a beach buggy. Just there were two that you could just take and you just transfer them onto this beach buggy that has these huge wheels that can go on the sand. And it just was so awesome, and it allowed her to come out on the beach with us. So I think that's something else we can talk to the Parks Department about maybe adding. Susan Deutsch: Yes. And another, I have a relative who has a house in Martha's Vineyard and what they have on their beaches is something built right over the sand that you can just push a wheel chair on to get out to the beach. Chair Beth Kenny: And we have heard from people wanting to be able to access things like the Sand Castle Contest. So I like what you guys are thinking. Chair Beth Kenny: Commissioner Deutsch? Susan Deutsch: The Parks Department cancelled their meeting, which I think was last week. Oh, tomorrow? Yes, it's cancelled the meeting. Chair Beth Kenny: Yes. Commissioner Aghapekian? Anto Aghapekian: I have three items that I'd like to talk about. The first one is in our local newspapers, they announced all the City meeting. There's the City meeting calendars, and all the commissions are listed. Their schedule of the commission meetings are announced in the newspaper, and it comes out weekly. And I'd like us to be on this schedule so that people know when we meet and hopefully they're coming. That's one item. The other item is on Clement Avenue, you probably have heard about. Anto Aghapekian: They're calling it the Clement Avenue Corridor. It's about a mile and a half street that's going to be converted into amenities and leisure, amenities and circulation area. The City has about $5 million donation, not donation, but a grant from the federal government to work on this project. And the lady who is responsible for this project from the City planning department is Gayle Payne. Anto Aghapekian: And so she is the contact person. And what happened during the Central Avenue presentation with Gayle, it was after the fact. All we were told or this commission was informed was, after the fact, this is what we're going to do. What I would like to see happen this time around is before the planning department starts planning and hiring designers to do the design, I think that we should get in touch with Gayle and I volunteer to do this. I will walk that one and a half mile to Clement Avenue and highlight all the areas that are hazards for people in wheelchairs and highlight it on a map and pass it on to her through this Commission, of course, so that they do include all the things that are necessary to make that one and a half mile promenade to be accessible for a 09/12/18 Page 25 of 29",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-07-11.pdf CityCouncil,2019-12-18,25,"City Council Workshop Workshop Report Management Partners oftentimes controversial issues. It's a given that you will be criticized and there will be those who vehemently disagree with your decisions. That is unavoidable. Develop a thick skin and do your best to not take personally the conflicts and disagreements that are a normal part of your new role. If you don't develop a thick skin, you will overreact to criticism. Additionally, you are now part of an organization and will be blamed/criticized for the actions of the organization that you had nothing to do with That is the reality of your new role and you should keep that in mind. And remember, the city manager is not always to blame when things go wrong, though he/she should take appropriate responsibility for the organization's actions. It can be easy to focus your frustration on the city manager. You will be happier and more effective if you can experience the normal ""ups and downs"" of city life without needing to always find someone at fault. Whatever the issue or encounter, try not to take it personally. Try to keep personal likes and dislikes out of the equation Your fellow councilmembers and the city manager are not your family or personal friends; they are your ""professional colleagues,"" and you need to work effectively with them even if you would not select them as friends. Lastly, always ""live to fight another day.' There are always future issues to decide; focus on those versus the votes already taken. And always remember not to burn bridges due to a difficult defeat; you will need those ""bridges"" for future votes! Appreciate the legitimate difference between the ""community perspective"" and the ""professional/technical' perspective: While you will primarily view issues from your perspective as a resident/citizen in a manner similar to the other residents of the community, the city staff will often have a more ""technical/professional"" perspective. What might make a great deal of sense to the staff looking at an issue from a purely ""business"" point of view may not be the right answer based on community perspectives and values. While the city manager will do his or her best to bridge the gap between the two points of view, it is very helpful for councilmembers to understand that while the staff should be sensitive to community values, they will often raise issues based on their professional training that can differ from a purely community values point of view. An appreciation for these varied perspectives is critical to the council-staff relationship. That does not mean the one perspective is ""right"" while the other is ""wrong""; but both parties should try to understand and appreciate the views of the other. - -5 - 19",CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-03-01,25,"maintained space; requested that staff incorporate concerns when the report returns to Council. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is fine with the Interim City Manager's recommendations on how to proceed with the referral; he is concerned about a formulaic approach to mixed-zoning; another approach could be similar to what was done at Packet Landing/Harbor Bay Club; he agrees that the maritime jobs should be preserved; any plan or developer should keep the jobs a priority; he hopes people will be flexible and open to creative solutions to fully utilizing the intent of MX zoning. Councilmember Daysog stated the industry cluster at the marina is intimately tied to the area; he looks forward to the discussion; he would like to maintain the jobs and industry that reflect the character and history of Alameda; Council should be actively engaged in preserving the maritime traditions, jobs, and connections with residents and businesses. The Interim City Manager stated staff is considering a process similar to the one regarding the Harbor Bay Club as a preliminary step. Mayor Spencer stated the referral speaks to the consideration of mixed use throughout the entire City, not just the Northern Waterfront site; inquired whether staff's response would be in regard to Citywide, or two-fold. The Interim City Manager stated the tour will be on the entire Northern Waterfront; there is a sense of urgency at Alameda Marina; conversations about other MX zoned areas could be included, including Alameda Landing; North Housing does not have MX zoning. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated there are no projects pending at the Alameda Marina. Mayor Spencer stated that she would be agreeable to reviewing the mixed-use zoning Citywide, which could be done at any time; she has concerns about starting a preliminary process without a project pending; she would like more information on the current options regarding what needs to be included in mixed-use, such as percentage of housing. The Interim City Manager stated a discussion about the issues cannot be done now, but could be brought back. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to include the current zoning options staff is considering when the issue comes back. Vice Mayor Matarrese concurred with Mayor Spencer; stated reviewing and understanding current rules is essential to future considerations; his intent for the exercise is to find out whether what the City has is sufficient; he would like to get the exercise going and hopes for support from the Council. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf CityCouncil,2008-02-19,25,"ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 9:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 13 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission February 19, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-16,25,"including, but not limited to, the businesses adjacent to the site or in the general vicinity; inquired whether or not there is a reason to include resident complaints; another requirement is the provider agrees to notify the City should any of the following occur: violence or credible threats against staff or other program clients; inquired about the procedure. Mr. Russell responded BACS is happy to provide notice to the City if it determines issues are -affecting the community; noted some of the language included in the agreement is boiler plate and should be modified. The Community Development Director stated Council can include direction to modify the contract in order to address concerns posed by Councilmember Daysog; staff can ensure there is an opportunity to part ways with the program if excessive complaints arise; staff can hold a discussion on procedure for termination. Vice Mayor Vella stated questions have been raised relative to cost; the City might forego roughly $45,000 in rent revenue per unit annually; the units are currently not being rented; therefore, rent is not being collected; using empty houses at Alameda Point for homeless housing was recommended during her first Council term; she would have liked staff to have provided outreach to neighbors ahead of time; expressed support for outreach being conducted and for scheduling additional outreach meetings to allow for questions and answers; stated the proposed program has been recommended by many over the years; the City now has the funding and space; Council understands that the number of people in need of housing is high and continues to grow; the proposed program provides units and beds within Alameda for emergency needs; the program is critical; the weather is beginning to change; this is an opportunity to make sure emergency beds are available for those who reside in Alameda; she has similar concerns with the contract as noted by other Councilmembers; the language can be kept general to state: ""neighbors"" or ""people within the vicinity;"" the contract has requirements for documentation and reporting; the documents and reports will be official City records; significant reporting requirements are listed for the contract; staff can create an opportunity for review if an incident be documented; she would like to see community buy-in; the meetings are a good start to gaining said buy-in; the neighbors in the area are compassionate; expressed support for the matter provided that opportunities are set up for community input beyond the one scheduled meeting and with edits made to the agreement. Councilmember Daysog inquired why the City cannot move ahead with one of the three units in the first year and judge performance; stated the second and third units can be added after the first year. The Community Development Director responded that she has concerns relative to economies of scale. Mr. Russell stated BACS staff will need to look at the operational economies of scale to invest in the infrastructure to operate the project; volume can create economic Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2021 14",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2019-03-13,25,"ITEM 3-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, March 13, 2019, 6:30 PM Jennifer Roloff: Thank you. Jenn Barrett: Thank you so much for filling in last minute. We really appreciate that. 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS Jenn Barrett: Item 7 is announcements. Do we have any announcements? Anto Aghapekian: I don't have an announcement, but I have an issue that came up in the newspaper I got aware of, that I would like to bring to the commission's attention and discussion, and see if there is anything that we can do about it. It was in last week's Alameda Sun. The Alameda Unified School District, who has given the parents who have children with learning issues, and they have arbitrarily, without consulting with the parents, they have moved them to another school, another area. And the parents are extremely unhappy. I don't know if you want me to read this article. You may have seen this article. Jennifer Roloff: Yes. Susan Deutsch: No, I haven't. Anto Aghapekian: I think that the parents of these children are, literally, 24/7, 365 days and night, are working with these kids. And I have a lot of respect to their knowledge and their experience. And for the school district to just arbitrarily decide to move them around just by giving the parents one week notice is kind of hard to accept. And I don't know what we can do. I don't know if we can write a letter to the school district asking them to pay more attention to the parents and their opinions. Something like this, to my experience, the school district should have organized a workshop with the parents weeks, weeks, if not months, ahead of that to discuss how they're going to handle this issue. I do know that the school district has problems with finances and they're trying to deal with the best they can with how to stretch the dollars that they have, but to do it at the expense of these children is not a good way to go. So my request is for this commission to let the school know that we support these kids and their parents, and we would like the school district to put the brakes on this program and listen to the parents and work with the parents a little closer, to come up with a better solution than what they have. Leslie Morrison: What's the date of that article? Anto Aghapekian: This is last week, this is last Tuesday. Leslie Morrison: It's a Tuesday, so that would have been the 7th? Susan Deutsch: It's the Alameda Sun? Anto Aghapekian: Yes. 03/13/19 Page 25 of 28",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2019-03-13.pdf OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-04-05,25,"Commissioner Chen suggested a process for complaints; stated that she hopes there is a list collected of all the Commission's lengthy conversations about all the ways the Sunshine Ordinance is practiced. Commissioner LoPilato suggests two avenues: 1) Section 2-22.4 indicates one of the Commission's duties is to report in writing to the Council at least once annually on any particular policy problems encountered in the administration of the Sunshine Ordinance; she agrees with Commissioner Chen that the Commission is spending about 90% of time on it; the Commission should probably establish a cadence on this in the context of a subcommittee; it should be assumed that complaints will continue to be received and should be explored; 2) Section 2-92.4 states that the Commission shall review public notices to ensure they conform to the requirements of the article and work to improve publicly accessible information databases; suggested welcoming staff's thoughts on what the Commission could best be doing to comply with both those aspects; stated there might be a way to get some suggestions about how the Commission could handle these issues offline in an efficient way; having some cadence may have quicker meetings which would give appropriate time for public comment; noted the great work Vice Chair Shabazz did in his PRA workshop. Commissioner Reid inquired whether it would be possible to hold a special meeting to discuss the null and void remedy, to which Chair Tilos responded he would not like to do so. Vice Chair Shabazz thanked people for attending his PRA workshop; stated he likes the suggestion about a subcommittee with clear goals; suggested exploring having the City Council timer feature and guidelines on what type of questions can be asked in advance of meetings. Commissioner Reid inquired whether it would be possible to establish a subcommittee to discuss some questions that may be relevant to the Sunshine Ordinance. The City Clerk responded it cannot happen tonight since it is not on the agenda; stated the Commission could explore it at a future meeting. Adjournment Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 11:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission April 5, 2021 25",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-10,25,"both the Tidelands area as well as the non-Tidelands area; some historical buildings on Clement Avenue are in the commercial core; there has been a lot of talk about makerspace and artist studios; an artist studio probably is not going work in the Tidelands area based on Tidelands restrictions. Councilmember Matarrese stated the public open space west of Building 19 seems to be out of place with the boat launch and Harbor Master areas, as well as the commercial maritime activity in Building 19; the open space is 1,900 square feet. The Assistant Community Development Director stated the heavy commercial area is to the east of Building 19; there is a green area between the parking lot, Harbor Master and back side of Building 19 right on the Bay Trail; the piece was leftover, but could be part of the commercial maritime core area. Councilmember Matarrese stated having the area be part of the commercial maritime core area is appropriate. Mayor Spencer requested staff to show the area; inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese is proposing the open space be removed. Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated the open space should be moved somewhere else because it is right in the commercial core, next to the water and service building. The Assistant Community Development Director reviewed the area. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese is requesting to add more commercial square footage in the area instead of the green space, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the Bay Trail goes along the area, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired whether commercial would be right up against the Bay Trail. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the idea is to make the area part of the commercial/boatyard; the Bay Trail runs by the dry boat storage and could run past a small maritime area; boatyard areas need yard space. Councilmember Matarrese stated workers need to lay out masts and look at rigging; inquired about the square are next to Building 19 on page 32. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the square is Building C, which does not exist; stated the boatyard operator might not want a building there. Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council can discuss the issue when the boatyard Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 17 July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf OpenGovernmentCommission,2015-02-02,25,"The Assistant City Attorney continued the sentence: four years after they are filed or adopted; stated the items may be kept, but it is a matter of whether they should be kept on the City's website all the time; it is not that they would not exist, but they would not be on the City's website. Commissioner Dieter stated at the last meeting, discussion was that there is no problem with keeping items on the City's website; space is not a problem; questioned whether agendas and minutes would be removed after four years, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in terms of the website, correct. Commissioner Dieter inquired why it says agendas and minutes would be removed after four years if there is no capacity problem, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded information would be stale after said length of time. The City Clerk stated some of the things that would change over time would be the Executive Management Work Plans, Capital Improvement Plans and Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), which are very large and could be removed after the project has been approved and completed; said documents get updated so retaining them for a long period might be harder; agendas and minutes are in a database; maybe agendas and minutes can be removed from the Section. Vice Chair Foreman noted the Planning Board never post minutes; inquired if it is violation of the Section, to which the City Clerk responded that she would follow up on the matter. Commissioner Bonta stated there seem to be some things, such as the Alameda Municipal Code, which have the current version, not the prior version for four years past, to which the City Clerk concurred. Chair Aguilar stated the addition should be added at the bottom [of the Section]. Vice Chair Foreman and the Assistant City Attorney concurred. The Assistant City Attorney stated the items could be asterisked with an explanation at the bottom; agendas and minutes will not be asterisked; the rest will because they change after four years. Chair Aguilar inquired whether what would be posted is always going to be the most recent version. The City Clerks responded in the affirmative; stated the [Municipal] Code, in particular, is always up to date. Commissioner Tuazon stated that he understands removing from the website; inquired whether the information completely deleted, to which the City Clerk responded in the negative. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 25",OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2016-11-01,25,"On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1. (16-574) Consider Directing the City Manager to Schedule a Priority Setting Work Session. (Mayor Spencer) Refer to the first referral on inclusionary housing [paragraph no. 16- for City Manager comments on all the referrals. Mayor Spencer stated it is important to have the priority setting work session annually and have a public discussion on the work to be done throughout the year. Councilmember Oddie inquired how the priority setting work session would be facilitated and whether the session will be organized. The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated she is open to any facilitator recommendations; staff would look at existing workload; there is a combination of staff that has to do the work; priority setting replaces the need to depend on referrals. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the priority setting work session is necessary and urged Council support. The City Manager stated a facilitator will meet with each Councilmember before the meeting to go over the process. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would be concerned if constituents come to him in June or July with issues and the priority setting session already occurred in January. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there should be some flexibility to address items that will come up throughout the year. The City Manager stated the process is not iron clad; the session is in addition to the referral process and is an opportunity for Council to look ahead; staff has to be flexible enough to respond to constituents. Mayor Spencer moved approval of calling the question to approve referral. Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion. On the call for the question to approve the referral, the motion carried be the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf CityCouncil,2015-10-20,25,"Councilmember Oddie stated it is a smart move to be the land banker as the value goes up. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated her questions have been answered and she is convinced of the approach, which should be turned into a document for Council to approve. Mayor Spencer stated how much Cushman and Wakefield has been paid or the contract was not provided, which is critical information; the presentation indicated Cushman and Wakefield was involved in the VF Outdoor campus, which she thought it was Joe Ernst. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded Cushman and Wakefield were the broker for Joe Ernst; the City did a Request for Proposals (RFP) and the City Council selected Cushman and Wakefield and PM Realty; the current contractor includes a 5% commission on land sales. Mayor Spencer stated the report needs to include the contract, projects and how much has been paid; a statement cannot be made that it is cost efficient without numbers; how much Cushman and Wakefield has been paid in the past two years. John McManus, Cushman and Wakefield, corrected one comment; stated they represented VF Outdoor; the contract ends in 2018 and includes provisions if City is not happy with performance; the lease schedule is 5% the value of the lease for years 1 to 5 and 21/2% of years 6 to 10; tonight, Matson was represented by Transwestern Group; half of the fees would be paid to Transwestern and half to Cushman and Wakefield; in every case there are outside brokers; fees would be reduced if there are not outside brokers. Mayor Spencer stated that she was looking for the contract to be included; Matson is an existing customer; Cushman and Wakefield did not find them; inquired the percentage is the same whether or not Cushman and Wakefield finds tenant. Mr. McManus responded the schedule is 50% for a renewal if the tenant stays in the building; the fee is half for relocation. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated for the new lease Cushman and Wakefield will be receiving full commission, which is standard industry practice; stated Cushman and Wakefield does all the front line work, not the City. Mayor Spencer inquired what incentives Cushman and Wakefield have to bring new clients to the City; stated that she understands Joe Ernst is bringing tenants to the City, not Cushman and Wakefield. Mr. McManus provided examples of new tenants: Wrightspeed, Winery 43, Fred Grandy, Universal Studios, and Restoration Hardware. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf CityCouncil,2009-01-06,25,"Commissioner deHaan stated bamboo is the least expensive option but requires maintenance. The Redevelopment Manager stated bamboo is very difficult to remove. Chair Johnson stated various options have been presented; inquired whether an option could be to reallocate the money to other façade programs, including the Chun property. The Redevelopment Manager responded the money could be reallocated to other CIC redevelopment priorities, including the Chun property. Chair Johnson stated fixing the Chun property is important because a lot of money has been spent in the area; the owners are committing to spend $200,000. The Redevelopment Manager stated the owners want to remediate before selling the site; plans include removing the chain link fence, repainting, and improving the interior; planters would be installed; the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) has agreed to maintain the planters. Chair Johnson inquired whether benches would be allowed. The Redevelopment Manager responded benches would be a liability during remediation. Commissioner Tam requested clarification on improvement costs for the Chun property. The Redevelopment Manager stated costs are approximately $75,000 to $110,000. Commissioner Tam inquired whether options include the northern façade landscaping and esthetic improvements to the Chun property, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative. Speakers : Christopher Buckley, Alameda (submitted letter) ; Richard Rutter, Alameda (submitted photo) ; and Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association. Chair Johnson inquired whether staff is requesting funding re- allocation in general, not for specific projects. The Redevelopment Manager responded staff is requesting funding re- allocation for the Chun property; stated other funds would be Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 2 January 6, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,25,"9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice President Cook). M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook). M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 d. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Mariani). M/S Mariani/McNamara and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 10. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: 11. ADJOURNMENT: 11:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Cormack, Interim Secretary City Planning Department Planning Board Minutes Page 25 February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf CityCouncil,2018-06-05,25,"Councilmember Oddie stated the City has discussed a storm water proposal; there has been extensive polling, but not extensive public outreach; the City does not have a climate plan so sea level rise is not clear; public safety infrastructure at the former Base is not being addressed; the public has not provided input at public meetings; he will not support a bond at this time. In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated there is $35 million for the first bond draw down. Mayor Spencer stated said amount is the first draw down, not the entire bond. Councilmember Oddie inquired what the other $60 million is going for. The Public Works Director responded there is certainty around the maximum spending in each of the three categories over the course of the entire $95 million. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Acting Assistant City Manager stated a slide shows where staff is proposing where the funds go under each category. Mayor Spencer stated Councilmember Oddie is asking for specificity. The Acting Assistant City Manager stated the percentages are shown. Councilmember Oddie stated specificity, such as paving five miles, is only within the first $35 million. The Acting Assistant City Manager stated staff does not have a list of the projects. Councilmember Oddie stated projects are not known for two-thirds of the bond. Mayor Spencer inquired regarding which five miles would be paved, to which the Public Works Director responded there is a five year paving plan; projects planned for later years would be advanced. Mayor Spencer inquired whether voters could go and see specific projects which are being funded for duration of the bond. The Public Works Director responded that he would be hesitant to specify which roads would be paved in a specific year because any plan changes would have to go back to voters. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the bond requires two-thirds to pass, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the Council would have to approve the ordinance by four affirmative votes. Mayor Spencer stated that she is not planning to support the bond; the City has not had Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf CityCouncil,2007-06-19,25,"Arts; everyone should be supportive of one another. Mayor Johnson stated the Museum Board needs to show that businesses benefit from making donations to the Museum; ACLO convinces businesses that support makes sense. Councilmember Matarrese stated a condition should be to have a written agreement with the Museum and the City that includes liability issues and a component for escalating the contribution as a matching vehicle going forward. The City Manager stated the City has been working on an agreement with the exception of the matching component. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not support a cut in the existing allocation; a gap exists between the rent and the City's practice of paying the entire rent and the existing allocation; there should be some type of matching incentive to close the gapi a rent increase is guaranteed; a second condition should be to establish a business and fundraising plan. Councilmember deHaan stated the matter might not be resolved tonight. Councilmember Matarrese stated the budget resolutions should be adopted with the conditions that the Museum allocation not be reduced, the City establish a Cultural Arts Program with the difference, the Museum and the City come to a written agreement that would include the escalator to help close the gap with the matching fund, and that the Museum must have a business and fundraising plan within the next quarter. Mayor Johnson stated other arts organizations should have an annual budget amount that they can apply for on a grant basis; the City needs to support other organizations; City support should be on a matching grant basis. Councilmember deHaan requested clarification on whether Mayor Johnson is recommending not reducing the amount by 10% and the delta for rent would include $14,000 as a match. Mayor Johnson stated that she would recommend a 10% reduction and allow the Museum to earn another 10% to 20% on a matching basis. The City Manager stated the match could take up the entire $50,000. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 14 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 19, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf CityCouncil,2006-10-17,25,"service by expanding lanes. The Supervising Planner responded balancing and thinking about all modes of transportation are needed, particularly with proposed mitigations; stated the policies will go through a rigorous study ; the community would be involved. Mayor Johnson stated she does not see an inconsistency with the General Plan; inquired whether other mitigations can be proposed. The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated for an impact at Central Avenue and Eighth Street, mitigation could be done by taking out parking, adding travel lanes, and taking out trees; the analysis might say that the mitigation should not be done. Mayor Johnson stated General Plan inconsistencies need to be addressed when the policies come back. Councilmember Matarrese stated the policies could be applied as written with the condition that unless there is a specific reference in the General Plan that requires the widening of a roadway, the policies could be used as a guidance or the policies could be used if there is a specific intersection that will be widened beyond the width of the approaching roadway specifically called out in the General Plan in text; he is betting that there are very few instances in the General Plan that state traffic lanes would be added. The Supervising Planner stated the project goal is to come back with a General Plan amendment to adopt a Transportation Element. ; inconsistencies may be found. Councilmember Matarrese stated a secondary goal is to apply the principles to EIR'S that are coming before Council. Councilmember deHaan stated Council is looking at the policies as guidelines and not accepted policies per se. Mayor Johnson stated the guidelines would be tested and analyzed in long-range plans and would become policies that would become part of the General Plan; the idea is to use the policies as guidelines in considering EIR'S in the short term. Councilmember Matarrese stated he interprets a guideline as an initiation point; making the project work or taking care of the situation within the guidelines is fine; otherwise justification and mitigation need to be looked at beyond guidelines; guidelines Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 October 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf CityCouncil,2005-06-07,25,"Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that if recruiter benefits are realized, funding can be added for the future years re-emphasized that 2005, 2006, and 2007 will be extremely lean years ; stated that she appreciates the complex and difficult work done by the Development Services Department; efforts will help to bring Alameda back to the viable community and good business center of 20 to 50 years ago. Commissioner/Boar Member Gilmore thanked the Acting City Manager/Acting Executive Director and Department Heads for an extremely useful budget presentation; requested additional information on the COPS Unit and additional staffing of the DARE Program. Councilmember Daysog requested an Off Agenda Report providing up to date information on the issue of telephone tax for public safety. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the proposal to fund infrastructure included an increase in the property transfer tax and the legality of using the funds for streets and sidewalks. The Acting City Manager responded that he would include the property transfer tax increase in the proposal; the City Attorney will look into the legality of the matter Proposition 218 addresses what can and cannot be done. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she would like to continue to look at attorney and risk management costs; she would like to spend as little as possible on attorneys so that the money could be spent elsewhere; stated that it is important to be efficient with money and not cut in ways that eventually lead to spending more; stated that the Council needs to exercise some oversight over the litigation contingency budgets; the total amount budgeted for Risk Management is approximately $470,000 and approximately $350,000 for Alameda Power & Telecom; suggested that the money be allocated as proposed in the budget but that the City Attorney bring requests to hire outside counsel to the City Council; the City Attorney could be authorized to spend around $2500 for emergencies until the approval to hire outside counsel can be brought to Council. stated she is open to suggestions from the City Attorney noted that the Charter gives the Council oversight of hiring outside counsel. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Planning and Building reduction is a lay off or an unfilled position, to which the Acting City Manager responded the position would not be filled; stated he would like to fill the Planning and Building Director position Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 10 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf CityCouncil,2020-03-03,25,"Councilmember Vella stated the City Attorney's office is fairly compacted; expressed support for the City Prosecutor having a secure office space to conduct necessary calls and meetings; inquired whether the funding includes the City Prosecutor space. The City Manager responded staff is looking into office space. The Finance Director stated a new employee starts Monday and staff is trying to figure out office space. Councilmember Vella stated there is no fiscal impact to the PERS longevity requirement for Police Department; inquired whether the City gives a 5% differential for any Police Officer coming in that has a degree. The Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative; stated the number is not significant, therefore, not a huge impact; members with a degree would not have to wait as long. Councilmember Vella inquired whether there are officers without a degree, to which the Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Vella inquired whether a degree is listed as part of the job specifications, to which the Human Resources Director responded not for Police Officer currently. In response to Councilmember Vella's inquiry, the Human Resources Director stated the language does state that both the Bachelor's and Master's degree need to have some relationship to the work performed; the degree is valued and looked at. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the $111,500 cost to repair Woodstock Park could be recovered by either insurance or subrogation action. The Finance Director responded the City has an insurance deductible; stated the cost did not reach the insurance level. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the self-insured provision prevents the City from seeking reimbursement from the responsible party. The City Attorney responded that he understands there was an arson at the park; stated that he does not know if an arrest was made; he does not know the prosecutorial status of the case. The Finance Director stated that the attempt can be made; however, it can be difficult based on how much a person has. Vice Mayor Knox White stated the arsonist was a 13 year-old child; staff should be careful about having an aggressive approach. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 March 3, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-19,25,"The Assistant Community Development Director responded the cap was considered at $300,000 per tenant; stated a few tenants pay $50,000 per month; the program is not based on a first come first served basis; each agreement will need to be negotiated; the criteria is strict and the City can offer deferrals, not abatement, in the event a tenant does not fully qualify; the applications will be looked at closely. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the leases have high monthly rents. Councilmember Oddie expressed concern about offering a blank check to every tenant with a cap of $300,000; outlined monthly lease rents for various tenants. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a capped amount for a certain category could be applied for small, medium and large businesses; whether Council can provide direction on the parameters. Councilmember Oddie stated rent should be abated for those locked out and shut down for the first three months; the second three months should be as generous as possible with deferrals and loan conversion; expressed support for staff returning to Council when the $300,000 cap in proposed abatements is reached. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the proposed abatements are per tenant. Councilmember Oddie responded in total. The City Manager stated the $300,000 cap is for all abatements; staff will take Council comments and return with 2 to 3 choices in June to allow a good program to move forward. Councilmember Vella stated that she would like to understand the implications to planned Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) at Alameda Point and other properties; there is a cost associated; there are few businesses which have been truly locked out; expressed support for using the budget analysis to determine which items are delayed; there have been complaints related to infrastructure; investment should be in certain infrastructure. Councilmember Daysog stated one way to not provide a ""blank check"" to tenants would be to provide benchmarks; creating a threshold will help; expressed support for catalyst businesses being included, which calculates businesses generating foot traffic or positive collateral effects. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether comments should be submitted to allow staff to return in June. Councilmember Oddie responded that he can wait until June. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 16 May 19, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-19.pdf CityCouncil,2019-09-03,25,"CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (19-488) The City Manager introduced the new Assistant City Manager. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (19-489) Consider Reducing the Number of Commission on Disability Members from Nine Due to Difficulty Achieving a Quorum for Meetings and Limited Staff Resources. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Knox White) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Knox White made brief comments regarding the referral. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the referral. Councilmember Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Vella stated there are other boards that have quorum issues; expressed support for staff advising the board of the scope of the board's mission. On the call or the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (19-490) Consider Providing Direction to Staff on Transportation Priorities in Advance of the Active Transportation Plan Work. (Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember Oddie) Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Knox White made brief comments regarding the referral. Councilmember Vella moved approval of the referral. Councilmember Vella stated the item relates to the impact on existing neighborhoods as much as new developments focusing on being safe and accessible for cyclists and pedestrians. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Daysog - 1. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 3, 2019 23",CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf CityCouncil,2021-04-20,25,"liabilities; the key is to look at long-term liabilities and utilize opportunities and management strategies to knock down long-term liabilities and better assure the fiscal future. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a previous Council looked at the high percentage of funding reserves being held; a percentage is still always held, with half of the remaining overage paying down the pension and OPEB liabilities; the result has saved the City carrying costs on the debt; it is not accurate to state that the City is drawing down on reserves. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she disagrees with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's comments; anyone can look at the numbers to see what has happened in the past; she supports the assumptions being provided in order to see how aggressive it is and in which categories; as the forecast unfolds over time, people will see where adjustments should have been and how much the forecasts will be impacted; hopefully, all assumptions are correct. Mr. Morris stated that he tends to begin conservatively. Councilmember Daysog stated it is important to look at historic trends for expenditure analysis; it is also important to look at the budget from a performance standards perspective; outlined the possible breakdowns of City personnel and Capital Improvement Projects (CIP); stated a budget is crafted from the expenditure side based on spending and Council values or expectations and actual spending; the sustainability on the revenue side will be shown; expressed support for budgeting from a performance measure angle; another area to consider is actual capacity; the analysis needs to be factored in. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of accepting the model and report. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Abstention; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1. Abstention: 1. (21-276) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the Allocation of an Anticipated $28.95 Million of Funding from the Federal Government through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021 to Assist with Recovery from the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Not heard. (21-277) Adoption of Resolution Adopting a Tier-Structured Annual Rent Program Fee for the City's Rent Control Ordinance and Implementing Regulations, which Establishes the Proposed Annual Rent Program Fee for Fiscal Year 2021-22 of $148 for Fully Regulated Units and $100 for Partially Regulated Units; Allocates General Fund Money to Pay the Rent Program Fee for Fiscal Year 2021-22 on Behalf of Landlords Participating in the Section 8 Program; and Extends the Due Date for Rent Program Fees for Fiscal Year 2021-22 from July 31, 2021 to September 30, 2021, with Penalties and Interest on Any Late Fees Not Accruing Until September 30, 2021. Not heard. (21-278) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Article XV (Rent Control, Limitations on Evictions and Relocation Payments to Certain Displaced Tenants) to Adopt and Incorporate Provisions Concerning Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for Rental Units in the City of Alameda. Not heard. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 April 20, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-04-20.pdf CityCouncil,2008-01-15,25,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 15, 2008 - -6:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (08-016) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases One (08-017) - Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators : Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations : All Public Safety Bargaining Units. (08-018) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95 ; Claimant : James Ritchey Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Legal, Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel regarding a threat of litigation; no action was taken; regarding Labor, Council received a briefing from its Labor Negotiators on the status of labor negotiations within public safety; regarding Workers' Compensation, Council provided settlement authority to resolve the claim. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf CityCouncil,2018-10-16,25,"proposed is: ""provided at least one such cannabis business is approved on either side before the second is approved."" Mayor Spencer stated that she is agreeable to having two dispensaries opening up on either side of Grand Avenue, as long as the City ends up with two dispensaries on either side of Grand Avenue; expressed concern over negotiations causing delay in dispensaries opening as well as causing a monopoly; further stated her preference is an even balance of dispensaries on either side of Grand Avenue. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not see a need to stipulate location timing on either side of Grand Avenue; inquired whether there would be dispersion between the two on either side. The Assistant City Attorney responded there would be no dispersion; stated under the language, two dispensaries could be next to each other. Mayor Spencer stated that she is okay with the language and agrees with the Planning Board's suggestion. The Assistant City Attorney inquired if Vice Mayor Vella's proposal is to require two the four dispensaries to have delivery. Mayor Spencer responded at least two must have delivery. The Assistant City Attorney inquired if there has to be a distribution on either side of Grand Avenue. Councilmember Oddie responded that all four could have delivery. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if a dispensary applies to be next to an existing dispensary, would the process go through the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Board, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired at least three agree to the change. Mayor Spencer, Vice Mayor Vella, Councilmembers Oddie and Ezzy Ashcraft stated yes, Councilmember Matarrese stated no. The Economic Development Manager inquired whether a two-tier buffer system should be created; stated the buffer would be 1,000 feet for dispensaries, nurseries and cultivation to be located away from public and private schools. Mayor Spencer stated that she thought the buffer would only apply to dispensaries; inquired if the schools are grades kindergarten through -12th grade. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 October 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf CityCouncil,2021-01-19,25,"51 Councilmember Spencer stated the reconsidered motion is appropriate. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. *** Stated that she does not understand why she would be unable to speak at the continued meeting; outlined PLAs in Alameda County not being inclusive; stated that she would like an update on the current Public Works PLA: Nicole Goehring, Associated Builders and Contractors. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated public comment has closed for the matter; noted speakers are not allowed to speak twice on matters. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Not heard. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Not heard. COUNCIL REFERRALS (21-055) Consider Establishing a New Methodology by which the Number of Housing Units are Calculated for Parcels Zoned C-2-PD (Central Business District with Planned Development Overlay). (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard. (21-056) Consider Directing Staff to Provide a Police Department Staffing and Crime Update. (Councilmember Spencer). Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Not heard. ADJOURNMENT (21-057) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:10 a.m. in memory of those lost to COVID-19. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf CityCouncil,2016-06-21,25,"(16-322) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:16 p.m. in memory of the Orlando shooting victims. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 21, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-06-21.pdf CityCouncil,2015-09-15,25,"issues she would like the Commission to address: Carol Gottstein, Alameda. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like to be able to employ the collective judgment of each member of the Council; other cities have the practice of applicants attending a public interview session at a Council meeting; although applications are available for review, Alameda's Council just gets the list of names and vacancies; she would also like to see a possible change in the policy to apply to regional boards and commissions; suggested holding off on further appointments until staff brings back requested information and Council votes on it. Councilmember Oddie stated Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's sugestions are good; he does not want to foreclose any options and would like to see what other cities do; Council does not need to choose an option tonight. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the options should be brought back in a staff report. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the Board nomination process is in the City Charter. The City Attorney clarified the difference between Boards and Commissions process: the Board nomination process is in the Charter, which states the Mayor nominates and the Council appoints; the nomination process for Commissions mimics the same language but is in the Alameda Municipal Code, not the Charter; any changes to the Charter requires a vote of the people; Municipal Code changes can be done by a vote of the Council. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he is not interested in proposing any Charter changes; he does his own research on candidates and is fine with the current process; he does not support the referral because it is on the Council to exercise responsibility, not on staff. Councilmember Daysog stated many of the Boards have been in place for decades and some commissions are new; the process is not broken; he does not support the referral. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated process improvements could include clarifying the application submission window, and distributing each application automatically to each Councilmember. The City Clerk inquired whether applications should be distributed on an on-going basis, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the nomination process outlined in the Charter has not been rigidly followed regarding the timeframe; often times Mayors do not get nominations done in the timeframe; the City Clerk's office always accepts applications continually; there are no cut-off dates for accepting applications, as some applicants are new residents or submit after having an interest in Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 September 19, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-15.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-11-28,25,"ITEM 2-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 28, 2018, 6:30 PM person, people who made it want to withdraw it given the comments. It could be withdrawn also. Or we can vote on the motion, either way. Who made the motion? Do they want to withdraw it? Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Who made the motion, Laurie? Laurie Kozisek: The motion was made by Jennifer, and then it was remade by Jenn, and was seconded by Susan. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Do we want to withdraw that? Jennifer Roloff: So we would like to withdraw the motion. Susan Duetsch: Okay. Yes, we'll withdraw the motion. Jennifer Roloff: Yes. So now you can have a new motion. Arnold Brillinger: Okay, I'll make the motion that we have our six scheduled meetings plus a retreat, because the retreat is very important for us to get to know each other, and we need to build relationships. That's what those two ladies said that they need to build relationships in Alameda between parents, teachers and committee members. And so, okay, so that's my motion is that we keep the six plus a retreat date. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Okay. Do we have a second? Anto Aghapekian: Second. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: All in favor? All except Leslie Morrison: Aye. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Any opposed? Leslie Morrison: And I again am going to abstain being a new member. But I'm happy to attend in February. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Okay. I believe we're done with item 4C. So we'll move on to Old Business, Commission and Board Liaison Reports. Oh, go ahead, Laurie. Laurie Kozisek: Could I get a clarification that Arnold made a motion that we keep the scheduled meeting and add a retreat? Arnold Brillinger: Correct. Laurie Kozisek: I think you need to make another motion saying the retreat will be on such and such day from 10:00 to 12:00 or 10:00 to 2:00. 03/13/19 Page 25 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-11-28.pdf CityCouncil,2017-06-06,25,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance adopting the rent stabilization and limitations on evictions, as amended, and implementing policies. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Vella - 3. Noes: Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. *** Mayor Spencer called a recess at 11:48 p.m. to call the joint meeting and reconvened the meeting at 12:32 a.m. *** CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (17-358) The City Manager stated the referral for affordable and inclusionary housing will come to Council after the Planning Board makes a recommendation; the State is reviewing Single Payer healthcare to meet objectives for local control and fiscal sustainability for rising medical costs and addressing the needs of those in need. Councilmember Matarrese inquired when a recommendation on healthcare would come to Council. The City Manager responded the Council already gave the staff authority to support the matter. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry about climate change, the City Manager stated the Mayor and the City have been asked to join the U.S. Mayor's Climate Accord; the City will move forward with the Climate Action Plan regardless of what happens at the federal level and the Paris accord; Mayor Spencer signed on with staff endorsement. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (17-359) Consider Directing Staff to Create a ""Straws on Request"" Ordinance. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard. (17-360) Consider Directing Staff to Propose Regulations to Authorize Convenient and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 16 June 6, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,25,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (21-446) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated it has been three months since a death occurred in Police custody; the autopsy had been completed in early May, then passed on for peer review; any competent peer review of the autopsy findings could have been completed by this time; the City appears to be stalling; the City declared an emergency in the last year; several actions were taken under the emergency declaration; the emergency declaration has been extended; discussed parking and traffic on Webster Street and Park Street; Council must review the declaration every 60 days; discussed funding for local businesses; expressed support for a report being provided for the funding. (21-447) Aimee Barnes, Alameda, discussed a pedestrian fatality at the intersection of Walnut Street and Lincoln Avenue; stated it is frustrating to have a fatality create the traffic priority for the problematic intersection; noted a similar issue exists at the intersection of Fifth Street and Haight Avenue; she has repeatedly requested traffic calming measures at the intersection; discussed a collision occurring at the intersection; expressed concern for the intersection's risk to children due to a nearby park; the intersection is also a thoroughfare for people speeding between Lincoln Avenue and Central Avenue; expressed concern over an increase in traffic. Urged Council approve a four-way stop or other traffic calming. (21-448) Zac Bowling, Alameda, discussed the new Seaplane Lagoon ferry terminal opening from July 1st; noted ferry service has reopened across most of the island. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the Council meeting dates [paragraph no. 21-463 be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested any items pulled from the Consent Calendar be heard at the end of the regular agenda. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of moving the Council meeting date resolutions to end of the regular item. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. Discussed the Amended Employment Agreement [paragraph no. 21-462]; stated that he understands agreements differ in the public sector from the private sector; noted section 9 appears unusual; the practice is unorthodox; expressed support for extending the privileges to all City employees; discussed selling of vacation days: Matt Reid, Alameda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-20,25,"change, from the City's 2008 transportation strategy, which has been based upon the evolution of Alameda Point over time; the City has hired other consultants; that he has worked on phase and stage implementation detail from a developer's prospective. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated lawsuits were mentioned in last week's Alameda Journal headlines; tonight's discussions have included lawsuits potentially being an outcome of tonight's decision; three or four letters were received last week and came too late for the staff report; that she is not sure whether the letters would have been included in the staff report if the letters were received in time; requested feedback from the City Attorney on the matter. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel inquired whether Councilmember / Board Member / Commissioner Gilmore is talking about the damages issue. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore responded in the affirmative; stated that she is a little disturbed about the matter; she had the opportunity to review the City Attorney's opinion for the first time today; the opinion's existence became known to her about a week ago; that she requested a copy of the opinion from the City Attorney and was told to read the opinion in the City Attorney's office; the opinion had to be left at the City Attorney's office because it would not be given out in advance of the meeting; that she asked the City Attorney why she would not give the opinion to her; the City Attorney cited concerns regarding the white elephant in the room; she is disturbed by allegations regarding Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam, the Interim City Manager, City Attorney, Mayor, and SunCal; the situation has created an unnecessary, adversarial atmosphere around City Hall and the City; at the end of the day, everyone is friends, neighbors, and colleagues' and everyone will have to learn to work together; that she has volunteered for the City for over fifteen years; she has never seen the situation get this bad; the situation has been adversarial between the Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners even with general disagreements of opinion in addition to being adversarial between staff and the Councilmembers/Boarc Members/Commissioners; the whole process has bread an atmosphere of fear and suspicion that has driven some actions such as not letting her see the opinion; the implication that certain members of the Council/Board/Commission could not be trusted with confidential material applied to all the Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioner; that she wanted the opinion because the opinion is lengthy, and she did not know whether she would want to review the opinion again after reading the lengthy staff report; bouncing back and forth to the City Attorney's office is very inconvenient; the matter is a Charter issue because the Charter states that Councilmembers/Board Members/ Commissioners should be able to get an opinion from the City Attorney if requested in writing; the Charter does not state that an opinion needs to be read in a certain place; requested the City Attorney to provide an opinion that she is comfortable stating in public; stated that she feels the complicated opinion is difficult to digest; a Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 13 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-05,25,"*** (17-434) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue past 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. *** Vice Mayor Vella stated there are risks; if Council votes against the project, the City will not receive all of the benefits, like infrastructure and the ferry; she is concerned for the feasibility of Phase 3 and the sports complex payment; she would like to work with staff to ensure the City meets the commercial goals; she is prepared to vote in support of the project. Mayor Spencer stated the charge when the U.S. Navy gave the City the property was to replace 14,000 jobs; without the guarantee that Phase 3 will happen, Phase 1 and 2 are housing projects, not a job project; she will not support the project; the financing should be for all three phases; Alameda needs jobs; the property is the people's property and Alameda needs the commercial project. Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of ordinance amending the DDA between Alameda Point Partners, LLC and the City of Alameda. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice votes: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. Mayor Spencer called a recess at 11:03 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:12 p.m. *** The Assistant City Attorney requested clarified from Council that the vote is on the second amendment as amended. Council responded in the affirmative. (17-435) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease with Friends of Alameda Animal Shelter. Introduced. The City Manager stated the item is only an extension of the previous approval by Council; the second reading will happen in the next meeting. Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf CityCouncil,2007-11-06,25,"file for the licenses until the lease is approved because of the fees. Commissioner Gilmore inquired what type of licenses are needed. The Development Services Director responded food and beverage licenses are not separate; stated the major issue would be the Use Permit for the exterior seating; the owner would need a full liquor license from Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) i the facility will be an ""over 21"" establishment. Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation with direction to add language to Section 7 of the lease requiring that the wine bar not be allowed to convert to a wine store. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*07-046 CIC) Recommendation to approve a Lease with BurgerMeister Management, Inc. for 2319 Central Avenue in the Historic Alameda Theater. Accepted. AGENDA ITEM (07-516 CC/07-047 CIC) Public Hearing to consider approval of a first addendum to the Alameda Landing Mixed-use Development Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, first amendment to the Development Agreement, and first amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project to modify the Public Waterfront Promenade; (07-516A CC) Adoption of Resolution Certifying the Addendum to the Alameda Landing Mixed-Use Development Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; (07-516B CC) Adoption of Resolution Approving and Authorizing Execution of a First Amendment to a Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) ; (07-047A CIC) Adoption of Resolution Approving an Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Landing Mixed-Use Development Project Authorizing the Executive Director to Amend the Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the FISC; and, Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community 2 Improvement Commission November 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf CityCouncil,2017-06-20,25,"of Ruth Belikove, former Library Board Member. Councilmember Matarrese noted Ms. Belikove played a major role in getting the new library funded. (17-406) Vice Mayor Vella requested the Council meeting also be adjourned in the memory of Michael Dunsmore, an activist at Independence Plaza. (17-407) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the movie on climate change, Time for Change, be shown at the Alameda Theater. (17-408) Vice Mayor Vella announced that she attended the Best of Alameda event. (17-409) Mayor Spencer stated the Council meeting would also be adjourned in memory of Loranne Talsh, a breast cancer warrior; announced the Relay for Life event would be at Encinal High School, at 10:00 a.m. Saturday; encouraged the community to come out and walk for cancer. ADJOURNMENT (17-410) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. in a moment of silence for the above mentioned individuals. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 20, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-06-20.pdf CityCouncil,2006-12-05,25,"the MOU could be attached to the DDA. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the MOU should be attached as an exhibit. i the DDA notes WABA's desire to limit smaller retailers. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the retail and residential entitlements have different transportation patterns he can see residential commuters trying to head out of the Webster Street Tube at commute time he is happy with the water shuttle; he would like the land shuttle and ride share described explicitly in the TDM; goals should be described; the goal is not to have a TDM program but is to reduce the number of vehicle trips, provide improved non-auto transit options, and implement metrics to measure successi land shuttle and ride share lots need to be called out but should not be limited. The Supervising Planner stated the Conditions of Approval include the land and water shuttle as required elements of the first phase of the TDM; the Master Plan also calls for an on-sight ride share lot. The Assistant City Manager stated the cross references are generally universal between the DA and the Conditions of Approval exhibits. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated some of the documents, such as the DA and Master Plan, are City documents; the DDA is a CIC document. louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated goals should be mentioned. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated she would like to see something that addresses the potential lag in Tinker Avenue and the alternatives as related to the TDM and capi she understands how Catellus would like to cap responsibilityi she would like some mechanism in place if the City gets into a situation where the project is roaring and then there is a lag between building Tinker Avenue or building an alternative; she would like to see an increase in the amount of money to shuttle people until the Tinker Avenue extension or alternatives are built. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager suggested amending the language to have Council evaluate what should be done with augmenting the TDM with reference to the Tinker Avenue extension when infeasibility is declared. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 14 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-18,25,"The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the conditions of the UP regarding not parking customer vehicles on the streets was explained to the franchisee and acknowledged in all the meetings that the City and Planning Board had with the operator, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the notice alleged a violation of condition number three. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the language was sloppy; stated photographs accompanied the violation. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether a notice needs to comply with certain standards; stated the notice alleged a violation of one condition, but all the other evidence supports the violation of another condition. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the notice may have been done hastily; stated three public hearings were held to discuss the specific problem and everyone involved understood the violation. Councilmember Oddie stated someone could file a lawsuit arguing proper notice was not given. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there were communications from City staff after the initial notice was sent out, prior to the hearing, relative to the subject matter of the hearing. The Assistant City Attorney responded said communication is reflected in the Planning Board agenda material. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she did a site visit and witnessed there were no parking spots available; the Park Street north of Lincoln Avenue Form Based Codes state active automotive uses are not to take place on the main gateway streets; she does not understand how a large, successful business could get confused with the terms of the UP; there are better uses for the property without the implications to the environment; there has been adequate notice and documentation; she supports the Planning Board's decision. Councilmember Oddie stated that he has not seen any evidence supporting what the occupant is accused of; he is concerned with the location being vacant when it could be producing jobs and customers for other local merchants; any another type of business could generate even more cars in the area; he is concerned due process has not been followed; he would vote to uphold the appeal; if Council agrees, he would be willing to add more conditions to the property. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf CityCouncil,2014-12-02,25,"Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 December 2, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf CityCouncil,2022-01-04,25,"(22-031) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023- 2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog). Not heard. (22-032) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Daysog). Not heard. (22-033) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Previous City Council's Priorities at a Regular City Council Meeting. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard. (22-034) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard. (22-035) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard. (22-036) Consider Directing Staff to Immediately Agendize an Urgency Hearing on Senate Bill (SB) 9. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Not heard. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 4, 2022 25",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf CityCouncil,2022-04-19,25,"(22-279) Recommendation to Provide Direction to City Staff on Emergency Supportive Housing for Three City-Owned Vacant Homes at Alameda Point. Not heard. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Not heard. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Not heard. COUNCIL REFERRALS (22-280) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (22-281) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Not heard. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council April 19, 2022 23",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf CityCouncil,2008-07-15,25,"for four terms; grant funding was not provided in the first two terms; an attempt was made to provide a public event that benefited the community; a successful location was not available; educational roundtables are being proposed. Chair Johnson stated that having a public event would not be a requirement the intent is to use some of the grant funding on marketing and promotion; increasing membership would help. Commissioner Gilmore stated GABA is being requested to spend $6,000 on advertising. Mr. Kos stated most promotions are done on a volunteer basis. Chair Johnson stated dollar amounts could be assigned to in-kind donations. Commissioner deHaan stated GABA could provide its own measuring devise. Commissioner deHaan amended the motion to include that GABA would come back with a measuring devise showing fulfillment to their commitment. Commissioner Matarrese stated the motion should include that PSBA, WABA, and GABA spend 50% of CIC grant funding on advertising and promotion; the policy is that the City would get a return when contributions are made to business associations and requirements are in place. By consensus, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:33 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 6 July 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf CityCouncil,2020-02-18,25,"applicants have been screened; a public meeting was held and a lottery conducted to select artists for the 2020 calendar year. Councilmember Oddie expressed concern for violations of the First Amendment. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the request is to change the venue to City Hall West. Councilmember Oddie moved approved of the item. Councilmember Vella expressed concern about content based regulation of speech; stated issues should be addressed; expressed support for feedback from the PAC for the 2021 calendar year. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would prefer the art chosen for the third floor to be moved to City Hall West this year. Councilmember Vella stated the lottery has already been conducted; expressed concern about changing the venue without advising the artists of the process. The Public Information Officer stated when the lottery is conducted, the artists may specify a desired floor; an agreement has been executed with the artists. Councilmember Vella inquired how far out the selections have been made, to which the Public Information Officer responded through the 2020 calendar year. Councilmember Vella expressed support for enacting the change in 2021. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated many people are confused when traversing the third floor; that she would like the third floor to be user friendly; recommended the second floor be used instead of the third floor; noted there are concerns related to artwork depicting hate groups or symbolism. Councilmember Vella noted artists should not be slighted with an alternate location. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the West End of Alameda is being slighted without art; the West End should have an opportunity to display art; it would be nice to give the West End the same opportunity. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he is unclear of the Council direction; stated deciding what is allowed on City Hall walls feels outside of policy and problematic; City Hall West does not have many visitors; questioned how many artists would elect to display art at City Hall West due to lack of exposure; expressed support for a fair process for those to display art at the West End and for art being displayed at City Hall. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned about the public as well. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 18, 2020 23",CityCouncil/2020-02-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-10-18,25,"much new floor area triggers additional parking. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the credit for ceiling height is 7 feet, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending Chapter 30, Zoning Ordinance, to streamline improvements to existing residential properties and minor administrative, technical, and clarifying revisions to the Zoning Ordinance regarding chimneys, accessory buildings, windows, existing driveways and parking, non-conforming setbacks, home occupation signage, and other miscellaneous amendments. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated he will support this motion but he would like to follow up on amendment number 5. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (16-541) The City Manager announced the Public Utilities Board refund a geothermal bond that Northern California Power Agency bonded for in 2009, which is saving $174,000 for Alameda Municipal Power; stated that she has asked Joe Ernst to give a presentation to Council and the public regarding the Building 9 and 91 leases. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (16-542) Consider Directing the City Manager to Initiate and Begin the Process with the Planning Board to Propose Revisions to the Ordinance and Code Sections Defining Alameda's Inclusionary Housing for Residential Development. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) Not heard. (16-543) Consider Directing the City Manager to Schedule a Priority Setting Work Session. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard. (16-544) Consider Directing the City Manager to Immediately Hold a City Council Workshop on the Final Phase of the Bayport-Alameda Landing Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)\Development Plan. (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard. (16-545) Consider Directing the City Manager to Have the Social Service Human Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 18, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-16,25,"The Community Development Director noted in the State of California, the fixed term concept is highly unusual. Councilmember Oddie stated that he feels staff got the direction wrong. Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with the staff recommendation; two parties should be able to enter into an arms-length agreement for a set term. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what if a tenant wants an evergreen lease. Mayor Spencer responded most tenants want a long term lease, which becomes month- to-month then all the benefits kick in. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if Councilmember Oddie's concern is that all leases might become fixed term. Councilmember Oddie stated that all leases are going to be one year leases that could be terminated without cause and would not be subject to relocation benefits, which defeats the purpose of the whole exercise. Mayor Spencer stated the issue can be reviewed at some point. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated landlords prefer not to turn over units every year because there is a cost to do so; data will be collected on evictions; inquired whether the City will be able to capture the data on leases that are not renewed, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative. Mayor Spencer stated that she does not want to take away a landlord's right to offer a fixed term lease; people want said type of lease. The Assistant City Attorney stated Council could provide direction to require relocation benefits even if there is a fixed term lease. Councilmember Oddie stated the ordinance should be clarified to indicate the provision is for an evergreen clause. The Assistant City Attorney stated if there is an evergreen clause, the tenant is entitled to relocation benefits with a no cause eviction. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a way to ask tenants to report experiencing a one year lease or fixed term lease not being renewed. The Community Development Director responded the City could ask tenants to do so on a voluntary basis. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-09-04,25,"The Rent Stabilization Program Director responded the list is broken down in the report. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff knows how many evicted tenants had to host fundraisers, and if said data is being tracked. The Rent Stabilization Program Director responded the data is only tracked if it is relayed to the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC). Vice Mayor Vella stated relocation fees are not enough in some cases, which is causing the fundraisers to occur to make up the difference; requested confirmation that there is no way to track this information. The Rent Stabilization Program Director responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Vella inquired if she could forward fundraising postings to the Rent Stabilization Program Director. The Rent Stabilization Program Director responded there can be follow up on the information provided to ensure the tenant has been made aware of their rights and options available. Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern over the relocation benefit being insufficient versus actual costs; stated data regarding fundraisers occurring is valuable; that she is in favor of amending the Sunshine Ordinance for RRAC proceedings; inquired if the disclosures for different people appearing that serve on the RRAC have been properly updated. Councilmember Oddie discussed terminations of tenancies; inquired if there were any duplications. The Rent Stabilization Program Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Oddie stated that he believes the number of evictions over the two year period were ""no-cause evictions"" because tenants were drug dealers or prostitutes is zero. Stated the RRAC is working as well as possible, but the system cannot provide good results; expressed concerns with the 5% increase: Eric Strimling, Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC). Discussed statistics; expressed concern over a board member working with tenants and having confidentiality agreements: Catherine Pauling, ARC. Stated the report does not show relocation fees being a burden for small landlords; the designation seems arbitrary; expressed concern over the relocation fee being insufficient: Toni Grimm, Alameda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 September 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-09-04.pdf CityCouncil,2021-02-02,25,"returned by February 21st; an online survey is available at: www.alamedaca.gov/policesurvey. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the Interim Police Chief; stated there have been increases in violent crimes; expressed support for having 88 sworn Officers; stated the temporary lull at 73 sworn Officers was supposed to be only until October 2020; any modifications contemplated should work and build off of institutions, protocols and procedures in place; if the City proceeds in modernizing the Police force from the current, stability will be provided to Officers. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated APD is in a divided community with a split Council; noted that she was not present when the Council decided to form a Subcommittee; stated the Subcommittee has not been a public process; this is the City Manager's Steering Committee, not Council's Steering Committee and subcommittees; expressed concern about the process not being public; stated the Council will have only heard from one group of people; comments and input provided from people outside the committees is as valuable due to the Subcommittees not having Brown Act noticed meetings; the public was not allowed to submit questions; outlined an armed home robbery and the minimum amount of Officers allowed on duty; stated that she will be looking to hear from law enforcement, not committee members; committee members are not members of trained law enforcement; noted that she does not want to wait until March to find out what will happen to APD; she does not want to be a victim of an armed home invasion; expressed support for having enough Officers to respond to calls in a timely manner; stated that she does not want to compromise responses to gun calls; expressed concern for Officer safety; stated people need to find a way to protect themselves as well as the community; that she needs to ensure that APD has the tools needed to provide responsible policing. Councilmember Knox White requested clarification about the home invasion response from APD. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there have been incidents when response time from APD has been to the best of their ability; not having enough Officers to respond to calls in a timely manner is a problem. Councilmember Knox White stated that he would like to hear from the Interim Police Chief about response times and whether APD is waiting until the Steering Committee's report in March to make any needed changes; if any changes are needed to stop violent crime, APD should provide insight. The Interim Police Chief stated response times are looked at often; APD has prided itself for a long time on quick response times; there is risk of a longer response time due to reduced staffing; he has not heard specific complaints related to violent crime or priority one calls with a delay in response time; stated APD has had discussions internally to address the need should demand outweigh the ability to deliver service, especially for violent crimes; the more Officers on the street, the more response to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 February 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2009-02-07,25,"balance; the City needs to be disciplined and live within its means; inquired whether the equipment plan would be okay under the three-year repayment plan. The Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative Mayor Johnson stated the amount going into the equipment reserve fund should be reviewed; perhaps too much money is going into said fund; that she supports the idea of the down payment and repayment during the next two years; inquired whether the down payment would be the first year and repayment would occur during the next two years. The Interim Finance Director responded the fund transfer would occur this year and repayment would occur in three years starting July 1. Mayor Johnson stated that she agrees that the actual fund balance should be reflected; inquired whether money is included for the East Bay Regional Communications System. The City Manager responded the amount was not included; stated the matter would be added to the issue bin. Mayor Johnson noted the City can withdraw before debt is incurred and might need to do so. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether money being repaid each year by departments would be reflected in the figure that shows the fund balance available cash, to which the Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative. The City Treasurer stated that he is concerned about the integrity of the equipment replacement budget, which is $1.6 million short this year. The Interim Finance Director stated equipment replacement appreciation is done based on present value; planning for future value can be done but has a cost. The City Treasurer stated the FSC is using future value; that he is curious how the equipment replacement fund has ended up with a surplus; $1.3 million of the workers' compensation deficit seems to have occurred this year; inquired how it happened; stated the City has historically low workers' compensation claims inquired whether the year was a fluke or a trend; inquired when a more accurate workers' compensation premium would be built into the system and what would be the percentage of payroll. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 25 February 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf CityCouncil,2006-11-21,25,"The Assistant City Manager stated State law requires that the DDA be published fourteen days prior to being considered for adoption. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the document has been made public, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative. The Assistant City Manager noted that there would be one agenda item with eight actions. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the existing agreement with Catellus is also available, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the document would be made available. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog noted that the meeting to adopt the Catellus DDA was held in the Elks Lodge. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese noted there is a nice overflow room at the library. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the public needs to know the proposed agreement has not been approved by the CIC; the draft is coming to the CIC at a public hearing. uncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the speaker's request for an outline of the closed sessions seems appropriate. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the documents could be posted online, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative. Bill Smith, Alameda, commented on meetings. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 11:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 13 Community Improvement Commission November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-07,25,"services will be provided by the Wellness Center; Council needs to not be the ones causing issues relative to the project moving forward; arguments that have been made for exempting other matters do not stand muster; other matters of particular concern on the agenda need to be discussed; she hopes the Call for Review is the last political stunts to try and stop or impede forward movement on the Wellness Center. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she disagrees with the comments made about Councilmember Daysog and herself by her colleagues; she believes the matter is appropriate to bring forth; the personal attacks against Councilmember Daysog and herself from fellow Councilmembers are unfortunate; changes to the rules can come before Council; Councilmembers currently have the ability to submit Calls for Review; it is critical that phone numbers and the ability to participate in meetings is properly noticed. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for making changes in the rules; stated direction has been given to staff to look into possible changes. The Assistant City Attorney inquired whether two separate motions would be desired by Council; one to approve the minutes and one to approve the resolution. Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Knox White agreed to bifurcate the motion to approve the minutes separate from the project and resolution. On the call for the question regarding the minutes, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Abstain; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstentions: 1. On the call for the question regarding the project and resolution, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Abstain; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1. Abstentions: 1. (21-552) Recommendation to Provide Further Direction to Staff Regarding the Allocation of $28.68 Million of Funding from the Federal Government Through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to Assist with Recovery from the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic. The Senior Management Analyst gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for City staff guiding Council through the process; stated it is not every day that the Federal Government drops any amount of money, let alone $28 million divided into two different tranches; expressed support for the staff recommendation for the use of $15 million toward the ground-up build of the hotel acquisition; stated the City has made incredible headway with regard to implementing national leading homelessness prevention programs in Alameda; he sees the possibility of building a new facility with the assistance of $15 million as continuing Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 17",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-02,25,"(Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard. (21-709) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember Daysog). Not heard. (21-710) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023- 2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog). Not heard. (21-711) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Daysog). Not heard. (21-712) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Previous City Council's Priorities at a Regular City Council Meeting. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (21-713) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed her pin; announced a jewelry sale event hosted by the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter. (21-714) Councilmember Daysog discussed the unveiling of two art pieces in Jean Sweeney Park; announced that he attended a the School Board Subcommittee meeting with Councilmember Knox White; stated there is a report which indicates traffic safety measures and should come before Council. (21-715) Councilmember Knox White discussed the School Board Subcommittee meeting; noted the matter related to traffic enforcement [paragraph no. 21- ] which was not heard is part of significant concerns voiced by parents; stated that he would like to see a public workshop to discuss the Shuumi Land Tax. (21-716) Councilmember Daysog stated Council should discuss traffic impacts from the Oakland Athletics stadium. (21-718) Councilmember Herrera Spencer announced that she attended the County Day of Remembrance with Councilmember Daysog. (21-719) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended an event called Here I Am and a workshop put on by the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA); discussed a Diablo Magazine interview; noted Contra Costa County has recently developed a Countywide transit safety plan; announced a fundraiser at Books Inc. for the Friends of the Alameda Library. (21-720) Vice Mayor Vella announced it is Family Literacy Month; discussed an East Bay Regional Park District Subcommittee meeting and a ribbon cutting for the anniversary of Alley and Vine. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the owners of Alley and Vine are happy to be in Alameda. ADJOURNMENT Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 2, 2021 22",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-05-09,25,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MUTES OF Wednesday May 9, 2018 6:30 p.m. Beth Kenny: Yes, that's why we're talking about it right now. Jennifer Roloff: Okay, then I'll switch to School Board. Anto Aghapekian: And excuse me, and Susan here is going to be on the Rec and Park? Beth Kenny: Yes. And then I have Commissioner Hall for the Housing Authority and the Historic Advisory Board. And Commissioner Linton for City Council. And now Commissioner Roloff, you will be doing the School Board. Jennifer Roloff: Yes. Beth Kenny: Are there any questions, concerns or comments about your assignments? Jennifer Roloff: I just had one question. I did go to Parks and Rec last month. There is a meeting tomorrow night. I'm not able to attend, but I thought Laurie, and I went and introduced myself and I'm fine to do that on, I think we can all do that on any commission, but is there a way that you could send out a note to these different councils or commissions, especially the ones that are in the city and say, ""Here's our liaisons for the year?"" Beth Kenny: You know what? That's something that I might be able to do. Jennifer Roloff: Oh, okay, okay. Beth Kenny: As chair. Coming from me it might be more appropriate, and that's a good idea. So, I will do that. Jennifer Roloff: Okay. Just for the city of Alameda ones. Beth Kenny: Yes. Definitely. I can definitely do that. Jennifer Roloff: Thank you. Beth Kenny: So, if there is, if we're all okay with this assignment, the assignments now, let's go into our boarding assignment reports. We'll start with you, Commissioner Brillinger. Arnold Brillinger: Okay, well you guys are going to be very pleased for me to say that the Transportation Commission has not had a meeting since last month. Because we just met a month ago. So I don't have anything to report on that. I do have some other things to report later on. But not regarding transportation. Beth Kenny: Great, thank you. Commissioner Roloff, did you want to report anything on the Parks and Rec, that you went to? Jennifer Roloff: It was my first meeting, so I did a lot of listening. I think they're having a lot of challenges on Parks and Rec right now with some of the commissioners and the relationships 05/30/18 Page 25 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-05-09.pdf CityCouncil,2007-01-02,25,"added burden. Councilmember Gilmore stated the City would not ask the developer to pay an additional amount if the project does not do well; milestones would need to be hit. Mr. Marshall stated a more palatable outcome for the developer would be not having both the escalator and percentage increase. Councilmember Gilmore stated the increase would not kick in for five years, if at all. Mr. Marshall stated possibly the escalator could kick back in if the increase does not happen; he does not want to end up doing both. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the developer would prefer a higher cap. Mr. Marshall stated the reality is that some lose concepts are being navigated. Councilmember deHaan stated Council is trying to give staff and the developer an opportunity to craft something. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the water taxi cost is part of the TDM Program. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the cost is capped at $125,000. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the water taxi would operate for one year and then the whole TDM Program would be reviewed for success. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated a decision can be administratively made by the TDM Program Executive Director to reallocate monies among the other components, if not feasible. Mayor Johnson inquired who would be the TDM Program Executive Director, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the staff person hired to run the TDM Program. Mayor Johnson inquired whether changes would come before Council. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded everything is structured to go to the Planning Board; stated an amendment could be made if there is a desire to come to Council; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf CityCouncil,2005-08-16,25,"(05-413) The following speakers addressed the Theater Parking Structure Public Hearing : Valerie Ruma, Citizens for Megaplex Free Alameda; Ani Dimusheve, Alameda; Jan Schaeffer, Alameda; Rosemary McNally, Alameda; Robb Ratto, PSBA; and Jay Levine, Alameda. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (05 -414) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Civil Service Board, Economic Development Commission, Golf Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board, and Recreation and Park Commission. Mayor Johnson nominated Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft and Robert F. Kelley to the Economic Development Commission and Anthony M. Santare to the Golf Commission. (05-415) Councilmember deHaan stated that he received an announcement for a Krusi Park Open House regarding an application by Cingular Wireless to install a new wireless cell site at the Krusi Park tennis courts; the announcement states that Cingular does not own the existing site. Mayor Johnson inquired who was sponsoring the Open House, to which Councilmember deHann responded the Development Services Department. Councilmember deHaan stated that he thought that Cingular developed the first cell towers at Krusi Park. The Business Development Division Manager stated that she would investigate the matter. (05-416) - Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Harbor Bay Ferry has exceeded the 40% fare box for July; stated that advertisement needs to continue; alternate fuel buying options may need to be considered in the future. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 2:40 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf CityCouncil,2005-07-19,25,"Mayor Johnson stated said suggestion is greater micromanagement. Council would have to keep up to date on all litigation matters the City Attorney is responsible for management once outside counsel is hired; Council cannot be responsible for monitoring litigation and bringing the matter to the Council if a Councilmember does not like something; the Charter states the Council is supposed to approve the hiring of outside counsel; Council needs to make the approval; then, the City Attorney would handle the matter. Vice Mayor Gilmore requested clarification of how the process would work and an example be provided. Mayor Johnson stated the main responsibility of the Council is the Charter requirement to consent to hiring [of outside counsel] ; read Charter section; stated the issue is how the Council consents to the employment of special legal counsel. Councilmember Matarrese stated it is how the Council empowers the City Attorney the control is telling the City Attorney to go forward with hiring outside; the tier is the City Attorney can hire outside counsel for up to $35,000; $35,000 would take care of a minor matter or accommodate [Council meetings) every two weeks ; once the [$35,000] threshold is met , then the empowerment has to come back to the City Council for a vote. The City Attorney stated that if the additional estimate is in excess [of $35,000] the matter would always go to Council under the proposal; anything $35,000 or less will go to Council, if the Council desires; anything estimated to be $35,000 or more for the total litigation cost will automatically go to Council for approval. Mayor Johnson inquired what would be done in the interim period for larger cases, to which the City Attorney responded the matter would be placed on the agenda as soon as possible. Mayor Johnson inquired what if immediate action was needed. The City Attorney responded the system is two tiered; stated the City Attorney would be authorized to spend up to $35,000 without prior Council approval ; for matters estimated to cost less than [$35,000] the City Attorney hires outside counsel through the RFQ process. Mayor Johnson stated the City Attorney's statement differs from what the Council is saying; the City Attorney is stating that she Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf CityCouncil,2016-09-20,25,"The City Manager responded Operation Dignity would figure out and document the issue and problem Citywide, focusing first on Jean Sweeney because of the construction. Councilmember Daysog stated people are concerned with High Street in Oakland also as you enter Alameda; inquired whether data would be collected at said location. The City Manager responded the City is not doing work in Oakland; Operation Dignity is already contracted to cover Oakland. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the policy questions can be discussed when the referrals are discussed; inquired what is going to be done Citywide. The City Manager responded the plan is not relocation, the plan is to see what the City can do to get them out of homelessness all together. (16-476) The City Manager stated the City is doing an educational comparison of the two different rent measures and will send the information to all the residents. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (16-477) Consider Directing the City Manager to Initiate and Begin the Process with the Planning Board to Propose Revisions to the Ordinance and Code Sections Defining Alameda's Inclusionary Housing for Residential Development. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) Not heard. (16-478) Consider Directing the City Manager to Schedule a Priority Setting Work Session. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard. (16-479) Consider Directing the City Manager to Immediately Hold a City Council Workshop on the Final Phase of the Bayport-Alameda Landing Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)\Development Plan. (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard. (16-480) Consider Directing the City Manager to Have the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) Review City Policies and Procedures for Aiding Alameda's Homeless in Order to Make Recommendations to the City Council for Policy Revisions and Additions. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) Not heard. (16-481) Consider Directing the City Manager to Initiate Revisions to the Ordinances and Code Sections for Mixed-Use Zoning in the City of Alameda to Aid Retention of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 20, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf CityCouncil,2019-05-07,25,"and a significant amount of overtime being needed for the project; stated that she would like AMP to provide a rollout plan at some point. The Interim City Attorney inquired whether Council wants the item to return for a vote. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the item would come back with changes for the second reading. The Interim City Attorney responded the item should return with revisions for a first reading. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the item will be placed on Consent, to which the Interim City Attorney responded the item will be a Regular Agenda item, brought back as quickly as possible. In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding Council voting availability, Councilmember Vella stated that she will be calling into meetings when needed and will still participate; expressed support to have the item come back for a first reading. The Interim City Attorney stated the item should come back for a first reading with the recommended changes. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a vote is needed to proceed. The Interim City Attorney responded that a vote to direct staff to return to Council with revised lease language that encompasses Council discussion will be helpful. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the recommendation. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Ayes; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes - 5. *** Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 11:45 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:50 p.m. *** (19-281) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)/HOME Partnership Investment Program Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 7, 2019 24",CityCouncil/2019-05-07.pdf CityCouncil,2022-05-17,25,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) TUESDAY-MAY 17, 2022- -6:59 P.M. Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.] Absent: Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella - 1. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella - 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*22-07 SACIC) Minutes of the Joint City Council and SACIC Meeting Held on May 3, 2022. Approved. (*22-333 CC/22-08 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Transactions Report for the Period Ending March 31, 2022. Accepted. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency 1 to the Community Improvement Commission May 17, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf CityCouncil,2017-04-18,25,"status of the property. Vice Mayor Vella stated the report could be rolled into a presentation if a new application is submitted, rather than asking staff to address it now. Mayor Spencer stated that she is concerned the City having a right to the strip of land was not made clear at the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Vice Mayor Vella stated the City Attorney's interpretation of the property rights appears to be different than the developer's interpretation; it would be helpful to get guidance. Mayor Spencer stated that she does not want to wait until the developer submits an application; she would like the issue to be resolved so the Council and community know whether the property is the City's and how much it would cost. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City Attorney has information readily available, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated staff has started pulling together the documents so an analysis of the City's rights could be done relatively quickly. Councilmember Oddie stated he is concerned taking action on the referral so quickly would bump other referrals; he does not think the referral has a higher priority than some others. Councilmember Matarrese restated the motion to approve the referral, including receiving a report on the current status of the property and whether a future developer would still have to provide improvements as a public benefit if the City takes title to the property. In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding the referral's priority, Councilmember Matarrese stated the referral is medium priority; he does not think the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 April 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-01-05,25,"The Community Development Director responded Ordinance 1 is drafted to include the offer for new tenants; in place tenants would be offered a one year lease upon notification of a rent increase. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would not agree based on concerns from housing providers. The Community Development Director stated the California Apartment Association representative endorsed the requirement and cited Mountain View's ordinance, which goes into effect in a few days. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether a tenant could decline the offer and agree to something else, such as a 6 month or month-to-month lease. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated there would be no penalty for the tenant declining the offer. In response to Mayor Spencer, the Community Development Director stated Ordinance 1 has a provision that requires a landlord to offer tenants a one year lease one time; the offer would be when new tenants come in or when existing tenants receive a rent increase notice. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated the offers are different for new tenants versus in place tenants. Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff is referring to current tenants who do not have a lease, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer stated that she does not believe the requirement is necessary for current tenants, who have other protections; the requirement is only needed for new tenants. The Community Development Director stated existing tenants on a month-to-month term might like the opportunity to be offered a one year lease. Mayor Spencer stated existing tenants would not anticipate getting a one year lease after being month-to-month. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the California Apartment Association representative indicated 12 month leases provide stability; questioned why the City would not avail the opportunity for a one year lease, which is reasonable. Mayor Spencer requested the two be considered separately; inquired whether there is consensus on offering a new tenant a one year lease. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-15,25,"Councilmember Tam inquired whether School District employees are offered a discount for using the parking structure. The Economic Development Director responded in the negative; stated the parking structure offers a reduced, monthly rate. Councilmember Tam inquired whether School District employees have participated in monthly passes. The Economic Development Director responded that she does not know; stated School District employees are welcome to participate. Vice Mayor deHaan stated teachers arrive early and take up parking spaces; offering teachers a different rate would be a good idea; the School District needs to be involved; at one point the School District was involved in discussions, but he does not know the outcome. The Economic Development Director stated the School District wanted to park free which would pose a problem on designated floors. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how many teachers are at the School District, to which the Economic Development Director responded that she does not know. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the School District may have only fifty or so teachers; something could be worked out. The Economic Development Director stated the parking structure is not producing as much revenue as anticipated; the parking structure is offset by other lease revenues, citation collection, and parking meter enforcement. Councilmember Tam moved approval of directing staff to review the matter. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (10-302) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Civil Service Board, Housing Commission, Library Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board, Transportation Commission, and Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. Mayor Johnson made the following nominations: Jose Villaflor, Civil Service Board; Joy Pratt, Housing Commission; Catherine Atkin, Library Board; Eric Ibsen, Planning Board; and Philip Tribuzio, Transportation Commission. (10-303) Written Communication from the League of California Cities requesting Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf CityCouncil,2006-06-20,25,"should be applied to Lincoln Avenue between Eighth Street and Grand Avenue if the purple line on the Public Works map is for streets the streets are covered with tar and are not attractive. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated staff should make assessments on the greatest need, not cosmetics. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated streets are paved along Grand Avenue from Lincoln Avenue to Park Street; streets are unpaved west of Grand Avenue. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated Public Works identified the streets that need the most attention; she would prefer to drive down tarred streets rather than streets with potholes. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated Interim City Manager Bill Norton started the crack sealing program. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated money has been dedicated to repair unused streets. The Public Works Director stated the Pavement Management Program prioritizes the needs based on the street condition and not traffic; a resurfacing Contract has already been authorized. Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether crack sealing is still done, to which the Public Works Director responded slurry sealing is done. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated crack sealing should continue in order to prevent further damage until slurry sealing can be done. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he is not opposed to crack sealing. The Public Works Director stated some streets are crack and slurry sealed to extend the life longer sealing is the most cost-effective way to spend the money. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the City has crack sealing equipment. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 11 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,25,"94606. RNATILA@gmail By KEVIN Ko 94501 tsts Julto-CLYY 94501 jemorris@some gun EUGENE WONG 94501 eugenemark@gmail.com David Karlon 94501 Add my daveKardon@gmail.com CHARBS SMITH 94601 CKS1677@aul.com Chankedo Jateen Patekh 94605 jatcenparekh@yahoo.com",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-21,25,"contract be written in such a way that Exhibit A can be changed by the City, with agreement from AFS and a 45 to 60 day notice as the program progresses and iterations are made when approaches do not work; AFD and AFS can make the recommendation to change when needed in order to create a mechanism for the program to go back and change the schedule in a simple manner versus having to come back to Council and amend the contract; expressed support for the flexibility in allowing changes to be made, for Council giving direction to have quarterly updates provided and allowing Council to raise issues prior to the one year extension option; stated there are ways that Council can create breaks; he agrees with public commenters that the issue has taken 14 months and it is time to move forward. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the proposed motion amendment becomes a substitute motion. The City Clerk responded that she has heard the comment provided as amendment to the motion on the floor. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she thought the entire Council must decide on the motion amendments, not just the maker of the motion. The City Clerk stated the usual procedure followed by the City is that the maker of the motion accepts amendments to the motion. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion has been made by Councilmember Herrera Spencer, which has been seconded and amended by Councilmember Knox White; the maker of the motion has accepted the amendment to the motion. Councilmember Daysog stated the program represents a historic opportunity for reforming policing in Alameda; the action will be looked at with pride by many generations of Alamedans; Council should move forward with the motion as-amended; he has previously voted for Felton Institute to provide services; he is also confident that the AFD can manage the contract; the RFP is only one and a half pages long; the RFP is written more as a Request for Qualifications (RFQ); AFD has asked for the qualifications with respect to the items and sub-items included in the RFP; the response and proposal from AFS is in-depth; AFS hit all pertinent points in the RFP to ensure policing reform and allowing mental health professionals to deal with non-violent situations of implied mental health needs; Council should not miss the rare opportunity to reform policing; he is unsure whether the program will be a model looked at by other cities; expressed support for the pilot program. Vice Mayor Vella inquired how the quarterly updates will be provided; expressed concern about the updates being placed on a Council meeting agenda; expressed support for the update to Council on the pilot program being agendized ahead of the one year mark. Councilmember Knox White responded an off-agenda report for the quarterly updates Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 2021 21",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf CityCouncil,2013-07-23,25,"different community segments; mitigations should be contemplated with social justice and economic angles; further stated the City Council should be more involved; the process needs to start and end with the City Council. Urged adoption of the Conceptual Planning Guide; addressed the sailing program and suggested the program be moved to the seaplane lagoon area; stated the program is run by a nonprofit with the goal of making sailing available for everyone: Kame Richards, Alameda Community Sailing Center. Stated the Base is an unprecedented opportunity; the Plan's vision needs more specificity and should have more clarity about how the next phase occurs; questioned what high environmental standards means; stated more process clarity and more public forums would be good to get the public at large join in: Chuck Kapelke, Alameda. Councilmember Daysog inquired about the next steps, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the Council is considering endorsing the Plan with the potential modifications tonight; stated the final Conceptual Guide, including any modifications, would be produced and made available on the website; a number of documents would be released; hearings would be held with the Planning Board and City Council to present the documents; meetings are scheduled with Boards, Commissions and community groups; items would be presented to Council in January. Councilmember Daysog stated staff could deal with economic and social justice issues by talking to people who worked at the Oakland Army Base. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated now is the time for staff to meet with organizations and encouraged the Council to let her know if there are any others. Councilmember Tam moved approval of endorsing the Conceptual Planning Guide with the comments. Councilmember Daysog Seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Daysog inquired what would be done about the Council's comments. Mayor Gilmore responded the joint meeting with the Planning Board would provide an opportunity to discuss issues. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would be interested in seeing a framework for discussions. The City Planner stated the joint meeting would be a good opportunity to have said discussion. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 July 23, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf CityCouncil,2018-04-17,25,"sources; the Chamber of Commerce may be more likely to have sources for outreach; she would leave it for staff to do the most effective outreach; potential fiscal impacts to the City's budget need to be reviewed; she does not like seeing Alameda lag so far behind in the region; she would like to proceed as quickly as possible; inquired when an ordinance could come back for a first reading. The Economic Development Manager responded the earliest an ordinance can come back for a first reading is September 4th, but staff recommends late November or early December. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she feels Alameda is incredibly behind on the minimum wage issue; businesses are having a difficult time competing; neighboring cities already increased minimum wage; Alameda needs to plan a faster track and she would like an ordinance to come back in September; she would like an estimate relative to the budget; she does not disagree with the outreach strategy, but would like to be able to provide decent jobs within Alameda; the sooner fiscal impacts to the City are known, the better; both scenarios presented assume that Alameda moves to a certain year without bifurcating tiers; inquired whether or not Council recommended bifurcating the scenarios. The Economic Development Manager responded the scenarios were presented as two tiers for the Council, but could be done in another way, per Council direction. In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, the Economic Development Manager stated staff does not have a recommendation to do the scenarios one way or another. Mayor Spencer stated the scenarios were not part of the original Council referral. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she recommends proposing specific scenarios when conducting public outreach, rather than leaving it open. The Economic Development Manager stated there were more scenarios, but staff removed some from the staff report because it became convoluted. Vice Mayor Vella stated what she wants to know is if there is a strong feeling to bifurcate the small businesses rather than fishtailing it. The Economic Development Manager responded if Alameda has one minimum wage level, it would be easier for staff to monitor; it will be harder for smaller employers to ramp up an spend more money to get to the increased minimum wage level; staff would come back with an option for the Council. Vice Mayor Vella stated her concern with Scenario 1 is that larger employers are on the same schedule as the State to reach $15.00/hour which ramps up quicker but drops off; she would like to hear from the Council whether the goal is to get to $15.00 per hour earlier; she would choose Scenario 2 over Scenario 1; she would like to get a fixed Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 April 17, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-17.pdf CityCouncil,2008-10-07,25,"extended if Alameda hasn't acted on SunCal's land use approvals by that date. The 2nd amendment also establishes several new mandatory milestones : - SunCal's obligation to elect to pursue, or not, a ballot initiative by April 30, 2009 - Complete a final Navy Conveyance Term Sheet by July 31, 2009 - Complete a negotiated DDA by July 20, 2010. 2nd amendment provides Alameda with performance standards it needs to ensure timely progress on the redevelopment of Alameda Point. Failure to meet any mandatory milestone is a default of the ENA. In addition, SunCal will now be required to deposit $250,000 with the City to commence CEQA work by April 20, 2009. Failure to make the initial deposit or subsequent deposits for this work is a default under the ENA. The cure periods for all the defaults under the ENA have been shortened, so the ENA can be terminated more quickly as necessary. The city may request once every six months that the developer prove in writing that they are consistent with the obligations of the ENA regarding any transfer. These modifications protect Alameda's core interests and allows an addition of a new financial partner with the wherewithal to fund the necessary predevelopment activities to entitle a mixed-use project at Alameda Point. Member deHaan asked for clarification on the change of the ballot initiative. Ms. Potter explained that the only change would be whether SunCal elects to put their land plan on the ballot or not. They are not required to place it on the ballot, the mandatory milestone requires only that SunCal to inform us whether they will go on the ballot or not. Member deHaan asked Suncal if they would ""stay the course"" if modifications to the Measure A ordinance would not pass. Pat Keliher, Alameda Point Project Manager for SunCal, replied that, per the agreement, SunCal would like to continue to have an opportunity to stay the course. To date, they do not believe that there is any non-Measure A plan that would work. Their plan developed with community effort is a plan they will take to the ballot. Mr. Keliher further explained the process it would take to bring their plan to the ballot. Boardmember deHaan asked if SunCal would stay in the project, even if the initiative (to change Measure A) did not pass. Mr. Keliher replied affirmatively. Member Matarrese asked staff about his earlier request for a Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 6 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-06-15,25,"healthy street operations center; stated the program helps homeless individuals who have been criminalized due to behavioral mental health; FEST works closely with law enforcement for the healthy street operations center initiative and provides motivational interviewing and harm reduction by giving people a social justice restorative justice lens; FEST goes out and operates proactively and reactively in the community, while engaging individuals where they are located and providing documentation when needed; mental health is extremely important; however, efforts from the Felton Institute do not stop at mental health; once a connection is made, mid-support and documentation is provided on a continuum level of care; outlined the supporting treatment and reducing recidivism program that works with citizens being discharged by connecting people with services around housing and mental health; stated the goal is to provide sustainable housing, connection to mental health services and working with medical clinicians in order to triage for the proper programs; mental health providers need to be first responders. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the model being proposed requires a Police Officer to go to a call. Mr. Gilbert responded in the negative; stated the programs in San Francisco and Alameda County do not require Police to be present; the City would decide who would go to 911 calls; the Felton Institute has hotlines it runs, which could receive any calls directly to respond to people in crisis; the program proposed is a 24 hour mental health service program, not a crisis response program; the programs are staffed with a majority of people of color, which is a majority of the people being served; the agency is extremely diverse; staff reflects the clients served. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Felton Institute has a vehicle, to which Mr. Gilbert responded in the affirmative; stated two of the three agency vehicles are parked at the headquarters on Atlantic Avenue; an additional vehicle will be added and was included in the proposal. In response to Councilmember Knox White's inquiry regarding a crisis response program not being proposed, Mr. Gilbert stated the program is not only a model to respond when someone in crisis, but support provided will include people in the field working with landlords, store owners, Police, training and constantly working with people; the goal is to create more functionality, particularly around the homeless, mentally ill people and people with a drug addiction; people will not be served to remain in their current status; more functionality is needed; a movement system is needed to eliminate or reduce the number of homeless people in Alameda County and make sure people have access to mental health services. Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the Felton Institute is offering the same program somewhere else. Mr. Gilbert responded the approaches are new; stated the issues are everywhere; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2021 16",CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-02,25,"of arbitration; suggested the fee could be divided; stated the binding hearing process will be an onerous process; inquired on the time and cost for the entire binding hearing process. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated binding arbitration and binding hearings do not provide enough benefit for the cost and the problem; Alameda has a RRAC process that is non- binding. The Assistant City Attorney stated that the program fee would cover the cost of the hearing process; beyond that, the tenant or housing providers would cover cost to go through the judicial process. The Interim City Manager stated the process is not on the agenda; the program fee is not on the agenda and will be brought back to Council on February 16th Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she was trying to give staff direction. The Interim City Manager stated it is not a part of the ordinance. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the item is separate, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog stated looking at another city's process might be helpful. The Community Development Director stated staff is focusing on what the proposed ordinance is and what the cost will be to administer it; there will be flow charts and a lot of information. Councilmember Oddie stated the fee will benefit tenants and landlords; it is fair to share the cost equally. Mayor Spencer stated she will hold off on comments per the Interim City Manager's request; requested to stay focused on what is needed to craft the ordinance. The Community Development Director requested direction on the cap for the next tenant's rent increase if there is a no cause eviction for an in place tenant. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like the cap to be the same as if that tenant was still in the unit. The Community Development Director inquired if there should be a 5% cap. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the old tenant could not get a rent increase until the lease expires. The Community Development Director responded the landlord would be able to raise Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2020-07-21,25,"Expressed support for the renaming of Jackson Park; questioned whether the sign could be removed while a more permanent solution is sought; expressed concern about the committee selection process and community input: Jenice Anderson, Alameda. Comments read into the record: Suggest Don Grant to replace the name of Jackson Park: Ralph Walker, Alameda. Expressed support for renaming Jackson Park; urged Council to: remove Jackson's name from the park, begin the renaming process and develop one or more memorials to be positioned in the park in consultation with Indigenous communities; stated that she does not support a return to the generic, original name: Rosemary Jordan, Alameda. Expressed support for Option 1: dename Jackson Park, remove the sign immediately, and start the community renaming process: Laura Cutrona, Alameda. Expressed support for renaming Jackson Park; stated racism is a public health emergency; urged Council accept the Recreation and Park Commission recommendation to rename the park: Text message. Expressed support for renaming Jackson Park; stated Jackson caused irreparable harm to BIPOC community in the United States; parks are a place for healing and rejuvenation; renaming the park will ensure parks are inclusive, safe and healing for all: Text message. Urged Council to dename Jackson Park, immediately remove the signage and support the community renaming process in memory of the African people Jackson trafficked, hunted and held in bondage; stated a monument to Jackson does not belong in Alameda's first park: Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda. Stated there has been a renewed effort to eliminate and remove monuments to White supremacist in public spaces; Alameda's first park should be renamed due to Jackson's oppression of African and Indigenous people; Alameda should not honor Jackson with a park; urged Council to immediately remove Jackson's name from the park, rename the park and develop a memorial at the new park for communities oppressed by Jackson: Rename Jackson Park, Alameda. Councilmember Vella moved approval of directing staff to remove the sign at Jackson Park immediately and to approve a community-led process for renaming Jackson Park. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the motion includes denaming the park. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 3 July 21, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf CityCouncil,2022-01-18,25,"(22-042) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager, and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations: Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA), and Alameda Fire Chief's Association (AFCA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that regarding the Existing Litigation, staff provided information and Council provided direction, by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Abstain; Vella: Absent; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Abstain: 1. Absent: 1; regarding Potential Litigation and Real Property, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1; and regarding Labor, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 18, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-01,25,"second item [Setting a Public Hearing for Decision on the SunCal Modified Optional Entitlement Application and/or Extension of the ENA from Governing Bodies of Alameda by July 20, 2010]; staff is looking at either July 6th or July 20th. Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is puzzled why the matter is being addressed tonight when an ARRA meeting was scheduled for tomorrow but was cancelled; monthly ARRA meetings need to be reestablished. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of setting a Public Hearing on July 6th 7th, or 20th to decide on the SunCal Modified OEA and/or extension of the ENA. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff would come back with a recommendation on which date. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he prefers to have the public hearing at the regular July 7th ARRA meeting which would not conflict with Council business. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether staff expects to have the submittal that occurred over the weekend, the determination of completeness, resolution of financial issues, and transportation plan issues available. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded a definitive answer on the incompleteness [of the application] can be provided by June 15th; stated follow up on the financial information could be provided in the next two weeks; staff would be reporting back on transportation questions on June 15th Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the density bonus leaves a lot of question in his mind; 1,310 homes is low density; high density is 3,531; the project is not new development throughout but is adaptive reuse and infill; that he needs clarification on 29 areas on the reuse of the Batchelor's Enlisted Quarters (BEQ). The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the total number of units would increase by 30%; density, in terms of the number of units per acre, occurs through a density bonus transfer; a density bonus plan cannot be achieved without the density bonus option and density transfer. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated high density housing is outside the quarter mile and actually goes beyond the quarter mile; more homes would be outside the density corridor; provided a handout; stated the orange area is high density and goes outside the quarter mile; inquired whether high density commercial is Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 14 Community Improvement Commission June 1, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf CityCouncil,2018-03-06,25,"list. Mayor Spencer stated there needs to be a strong rubric. The Community Development Director stated staff hears the request for a strong rubric; inquired whether Council would consider creating a Council subcommittee to work with staff. Mayor Spencer stated if staff would like a Council subcommittee, she would like to serve with either Councilmember Oddie or Vice Mayor Vella. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested Councilmember Matarrese. Mayor Spencer stated that she does not think it is appropriate to have someone who voted against the matter on the subcommittee; inquired if a motion is needed to do so. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is already on a subcommittee; suggested Vice Mayor Vella and Mayor Spencer. The Community Development Director stated the idea would be that the subcommittee would work with staff and when the work is done, the RFP would be issued and not return to Council because there is the high level of direction. Mayor Spencer moved approval of having a subcommittee of Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Matarrese, Councilmember Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like the RFP to return to the full Council. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred. Mayor Spencer stated the matter would return to Council. The Community Development Director stated the goal is to return to Council by April 17, 2018. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the item can be on consent. Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter should be on consent. The Community Development Director stated staff will be returning to ask Council to adopt the regulations to implement the process. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 March 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-03-06.pdf CityCouncil,2005-05-17,25,"(05-247) Presentation on the City's infrastructure investment challenges. Mayor Johnson stated that she considers infrastructure the part of the City's budget deficit; the maintenance of infrastructure has declined in the last several years; although money was saved, it creates a bigger deficit that must be dealt with in the future; the Council needs to decide whether to continue to allow the infrastructure to continue declining or to deal with the deficit and prevent it from growing. The Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation on the City's infrastructure. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Public Works Director had information on the percent of streets and sidewalks not in good condition, to which the Public Works Director responded that he included said information for streets. Mayor Johnson stated the information was needed for sidewalks; sidewalks are in bad condition; sidewalks should be made a priority in addition to streets. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the annual funding shortfall is $2 million. The Public Work Director responded in the affirmative; stated currently $4 million is funded and $6.6 million should be funded; the $2.7 million shortfall does not take into consideration the $33 million deficit; under-funding each year continues to add to the deficit. Mayor Johnson stated the economic result of under-funding would be more than $2.7 million; not completing maintenance causes greater damage. The Public Works Director concurred; stated there is an optimum point when resurfacing should be completed to be cost effective. many streets are beyond the cost effective point, which results in more costly repair, such as a repair which would have cost $1 three years prior would now cost $4. Mayor Johnson requested pie charts showing the condition of infrastructure other than streets, such as sidewalks and sewers. Mayor Johnson inquired whether only spending $750,000 on street resurfacing during the next fiscal year would add to the deficit, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 25 May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf CityCouncil,2008-06-17,25,"Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that deferred costs are between $75 million and $107 million for health and safety post employment benefits. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that some of the fund balance could be used to seed the trust fund. Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Speakers Carol Quintal, Crossing Guard; Janet Crandall, Citizen Emergency Response Team (CERT) i David Baker, Alameda; Fred Blass, Alameda; Christine Novosel, Crossing Guard; Christopher Buckley, Alameda Rich Bennett, Alameda; Jeff DelBono, Alameda Firefighter Domenick Weaver, Alameda Firefighters; Steve Floyd, Local 689; Tim McNeil, Retired Fire Chief; Diane Coler-Dark, Alameda Chuck Millar, Alameda; Robb Ratto, PSBA; Kathy Moehring, WABA. There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. * * (08-278CC) Councilmember/Authority Member/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past 12:00 midnight. Mayor/Chair Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City will not be spending money on the Meyer's House; Greater Alameda Business Area (GABA) funding should not be approved until information is brought back; $50,000 is allocated to the EcoPass program. The Public Works Director stated the total program is approximately $36,000; $14,000 is from the General Fund; the AC Transit General Manager is allowed to reduce the passes by 15%. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a better to way to encourage people to take public transit, such as discount tickets for BART or other forms of public transportation; suggesting performing an employee survey. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that open dialogue should be initiated regarding the Meyer's House; additional funding might become available. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 15 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf CityCouncil,2010-05-04,25,"all funds, the Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated not necessarily; staff has requested SunCal to provide a statement of predevelopment expenses; part of the pro forma negotiations include what predevelopment costs have been put into the pro forma as eligible predevelopment expenses; typically, [developers] seek a return on expenditures. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the pro forma should include all known numbers. The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded the pro forma includes predevelopment expenditures; stated staff needs to determine whether the number is correct. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the [predevelopment expenditure] figure, to which the Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded $9 million. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated getting a breakdown should not be a problem. The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated staff would request said information from SunCal on Thursday. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the timeline is short; staff should not spend time on the issue; that she hopes SunCal provides said information; the issue is administrative. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated the pro forma includes $9 million for predevelopment costs which covers staff costs, the escrow account, and other items expended for the ballot initiative; staff is just starting to get into the detailed pro forma; the previous pro forma was based on the Measure B project; numbers are driven by the type of project; the key is to have the numbers be more than the budgeting numbers and start cutting numbers down to the detail to get to a point that the IRR makes sense. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether predevelopment costs have been received. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded in the negative; stated that staff is still waiting for the escrow account and staff costs to date. The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated the total current costs [for which documentation has been submitted] are $5.5 million. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated costs are off by $4 million. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the issue should be handled and staff needs to get onto other things; progressing at a rapid pace is important. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community 8 Improvement Commission May 4, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf CityCouncil,2006-09-05,25,"Legal Counsel stated the overtime issue is relevant and the testimony is very good for the record; the past standard allowed a written letter from someone in authority stating there would be no overtime ; an applicant taking a sabbatical has never been accepted in order to disallow income; she is not sure whether a sabbatical would resolve the issue. Chair Johnson stated taking a sabbatical would be a voluntary act. Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the snapshot covers the period from March 2006 to March 2007, to which the Development Services Director responded the snapshot covers a projection moving forward to March 2007. Commissioner Gilmore stated January 2006 through March 2006 was used to project the Peralta College income. Chair Johnson clarified that January 2006 through March 2006 was used to project the Peralta College income from March 2006 to March 2007; inquired whether fall and winter Peralta College income was not assumed. The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. stated Mr. Rutledge would be obligated to advise the City if he were going to teach. Commissioner Daysog stated Mr. Rutledge had every expectation to teach if enough students enrolled; reasonable assumptions were made from the best available information. Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Chair Johnson seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner deHaan inquired when the evaluation period for the next phase of houses would take place, to which the Development Services Director responded the evaluation is going on now. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Rutledge's could be placed in the next evaluation process. Chair Johnson responded other applicants have been disqualified and have not been put back into the process. On the call for the question, THE MOTION FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes : Commissioner Daysog and Chair Johnson - 2. Noes: Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, and Matarrese - 3. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 6 September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf CityCouncil,2015-01-20,25,"presentation was being prepared. In response to Vice Mayor/Agency Member Matarrese's inquiry, the Interim Finance Director stated the disparity in the reserves is because revenues increased and expenses did not; in prior years, the percentage was already 30 to 35; the gain from this fiscal year brought the percent up to 40. The City Manager stated staff predicted a growth of under 3%; 3.6% went into the reserves one year; this year at 8.1% after having projected 2.9%; at the same time, employee cost sharing for healthcare and pensions began; there were cuts in costs at the same time as an unexpected growth in revenue. In response to Vice Mayor/Agency Member Matarrese's inquiry, the Interim Finance Director stated part of the amount is unrestricted, but part is restricted by previous Council actions. The City Manager stated staff manages a lot of other funds; pension and Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) must be characterized. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated clarification is important for the public and Council to understand the mid-year budget. The City Manager stated a systematic approach to the next budget will begin in March to reach a two-year budget resolution in early June; the issues will be decanted in significantly greater detail. Councilmember/Agency Member Daysog stated a key component driving the $29 million reserve is a one-time sale of property. Vice Mayor/Agency Member Matarrese stated one-time events cannot be relied upon for operating expenses. Mayor/Chair Spencer stated a recent presentation at a conference showed Alameda County Cities unfunded OPEB liabilities as a percentage of their General fund; the range was 7% to 140% and Alameda was at 140%. Councilmember/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor/Agency Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Attorney noted that the First Quarter Financial Report [paragraph no. 15-067 CC/15-001 SACIC] could not be continued to tomorrow's meeting as it was not noticed as a joint meeting; the matter could be continued to the next Joint meeting. Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission January 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-20.pdf CityCouncil,2017-04-07,25,"(17-237) The City Manager outlined the numerous calls the City received related to the storm last night; noted the golf course is temporarily closed; stated every week there is a new federal list of sanctuary cities, so far the City is not on the federal list and the definition does not apply to Alameda; currently, the list focuses on cities and counties with jails. Councilmember Matarrese requested the City Manager to repeat the announcement at the next regular City Council meeting. The City Manager suggested everyone sing Happy Birthday to the Community Development Director at the end of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (17-238) Vice Mayor Vella commended Recreation employees who saved a life on the basketball courts at Alameda Point using one of the City's Automated External Defibrillators (AED). (17-239) Mayor Spencer stated the splash into spring egg scramble would be moved to next Saturday, April 15th, due to weather conditions. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Continued April 4, 2017 Meeting Alameda City Council 25 April 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,25,,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2017-04-12,25,"ITEM 2-B COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES MEETING MINUTES OF Wednesday, April 12, 2017 6:30 p.m. Arnold Brillinger: For the motion of this being the calendar for this year? Beth Kenny: Yes we did that vote. Yes. And then all of us said ""Aye"". So if the event committee has nothing else they want to report on. Lisa Hall: I just have one question, and maybe afterwards, but Kerry for submit application for the spring festival, you'll let me know what we have to do? Okay, thank you. Beth Kenny: And I want to thank the event committee for getting together and working on this. This is going to be great, and it's not only a great way to get out and meet people in the community but also, as we talked about in retreat, build relationships with other non-profits serving persons with disabilities. So, good work you guys, thanks. Alright, so Lisa Hall: And thank you Kerry for making this list us, it was just wonderful when we got there to put it together. Kerry Parker: As your Staff Liaison I am happy to put together lists like this and I'm happy to adjust it. If we decide that As I was listening to the group and no one was really expressing interest, let's say, in the Neptune Jam, it could be that that one is not one of the ones you visit every year. [background conversation] Kerry Parker: It's a big one. Let's pretend that, let's pretend that there's one big one that you choose not to, just for argument's sake. So this can just be modified on the fly, but this can be the structure of the year and we can reassess it every year. Beth Kenny: Yes and I would encourage all the commissioners to get involved in these events. We really need everybody to make it work. At something like the spring festival where it's eight hours, two days. That's not something that four people can handle, but it's a great opportunity, and you have a place to sit at a festival. Lisa Hall: That's right. Kerry Parker: Another thing to do might be to shorten the hours of the commission at any one of these. Arnold Brillinger: Right. Kerry Parker: So if you say well we can be there but we'll be there between noon and 2:00. That is within your rights too. Beth Kenny: Yes and I would suggest, and maybe Arnold you would know this too, from last year when we did the Art and Wine festival, it seemed like if we were going to cut hours, it would be better to cut them in the morning than it seems like as the fair goes on at night it gets a lot more traffic going on. So, just a suggestion. 05/24/17 Page 25 of 29",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2017-04-12.pdf CityCouncil,2020-06-16,25,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) TUESDAY-JUNE 16, 2020- -6:58 P.M. Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom] Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice Mayor/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*20-013 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC Meetings Held on March 17, 2020. Approved. (*20-392 CC/20-014 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2019. Accepted. (*20-393 CC/20-015 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report for the Quarter Ending December 31, 2019. Accepted. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency 1 to the Community Improvement Commission June 16, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-16.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-05,25,"February financials. Councilmember Vella inquired whether the month prior will be used, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Public Comment Read Into Record: Discussed issues on the policy and implementation of the program; stated not allowing publicly traded companies is a good step at limiting large businesses; urged the allowance of sole proprietors; stated a ranking system should be developed; urged discussion to ensure a simple and safe guarded program: Ronald Mooney, Alameda. Urged Council consider raising the loss level from 20% to a higher amount to target businesses most at-risk; stated those with a 50% or higher loss are more at risk: Text Message Submittal. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a ranking system will be used. The Economic Development Manager responded a lottery system will be used. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for finding the businesses which have been impacted most. The Community Development Director stated there is a lottery program; the minimum criteria must be met in order for applicants to be eligible; the criteria includes a minimum loss of income of 20%; sole proprietorships with one employee are not eligible for funding; noted staff has balanced ensuring expediency as well as reaching vulnerable businesses; stated Council approved the eligibility criteria at the previous meeting. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated more is known as time goes by; noted nuances should be considered due to businesses relying on the funds to survive; the requirement to include businesses with at least one employee came from the intention of helping more people; there is no easy way to say yes to some businesses and no to others; expressed concern about the survival of small businesses; inquired whether there is more the City could do. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he is uncomfortable changing the criteria after it was approved at the previous meeting; applications close tomorrow; there is never a perfect way to move forward; $7,500 may not save a business which has lost 50%; expressed support for working with the State program; other money sources could be explored; the program is currently over-subscribed; expressed support for discussing increasing funding by $200,000 to $300,000; there are options for quick funding such as gofundme.com expressed concern about a delay in setting up a community fund; stated Council must act now; expressed support for the use of a gofundme.com campaign, and directing staff to look into the use of gofundme.com; expressed concern about the materials for the funding applications not being in multiple languages; inquired Special Meeting Alameda City Council 4 April 21, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-05.pdf CityCouncil,2022-02-15,25,"requirement for youth access to the pool unattended should be increased; there are ways to do more with the pool; the City can come up with a model which utilizes the pool resource; the City can work with ASPA to get the word out about the pools. The Recreation and Parks Director stated the 8-year age limit for youths to be allowed in the pool unattended is being reviewed; the Board has agreed to increase the age requirement to 13 in concept. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her children used the pools for free for multiple summers; noted that she could not get free swim lessons anywhere else in the City; the City does not offer free swim lessons for seniors or children; inquired the cost of City swim lessons. The Recreation and Parks Director responded that she does not have the exact cost for lessons; stated the City does not offer free lessons; however, scholarships are available for those that qualify and apply. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated many renters do not qualify for scholarships. The Recreation and Parks Director stated the lessons cost $10 per class. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the City has been lucky to have the ASPA pools and volunteers; the volunteers have found ways to serve children, seniors and people with disabilities; further stated that she never paid for membership at ASPA pools; there are free options for youth and seniors; expressed support for the returning report to show what ASPA offers for free; stated that she supports ASPA; many families utilize ASPA pools; she appreciates the volunteers help in providing accessibility to pools; the volunteer time put into the pools is important; tiny tot swimming lessons range from $50 to $100; ASPA has been equitable in serving the community; questioned who pays for the operation and maintenance of the ASPA pools; stated it is not appropriate to continue to ask people to volunteer; expressed concern about increasing volunteer work; stated the pools likely would have been closed long ago if operated by the City; pools are expensive to maintain; the City has been fortunate to have community members working on the pools; ASPA is the most equitable pool available in Alameda; City swim programs are expensive; discussed the history of racism related to pool memberships; stated that she has seen people of color use the pool over the years; commended the community for providing free swimming lessons over the years for many children, including her own; stated ASPA is the only opportunity for free swim lessons; many children do not qualify for swimming scholarships and cannot afford to pay; requested the legal requirements to have lifeguards present at pools be presented when the matter returns. The City Attorney stated staff can provide information to Council. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like the information made available to the community in advance of the meeting. The City Attorney stated staff is happy to follow the direction of Council. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City must have lifeguards to operate the pools. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 15, 2022 23",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf CityCouncil,2009-10-20,25,"Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a clear, defined application process is needed; a determination should be made as to whether the project would qualify for a density bonus first; a higher burden would be placed on the developer because economic feasibility needed to be provided. louncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated a developer would have to know project details, which would be included in the application. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the developer could submit plans simultaneously. Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether an applicant would need to provide economic feasibility data when a density bonus is presented to the Planning Board. The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff would need to provide documentation proving that the project is not economically feasible. The Planning Services Manager continued with the presentation. In response to Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding the Housing Element, the Planning Services Manager stated the Housing Element has been conditionally certified by the State; staff is working with the State to achieve some type of approval ; one requirement of the conditionally approved Housing Element is that the City adopt a density bonus ordinance. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated there is no assurance that the City would receive a certified Housing Element from the State if a density bonus is adopted. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired how long the State's density bonus ordinance has been around, to which the Planning Services Manager responded since 1979. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the reason the City does not have a fully certified Housing Element is because the State wants the City to plan where to put units that would have been built at the former Naval base. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired what role Economic Development would play in obtaining funding. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the 20% Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf CityCouncil,2017-09-05,25,"389 September 17th, , from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.; the Alameda Running Festival is also on September 17th. (17-526) Report Out from Stop Waste on the Fix It Clinic. (Councilmember Oddie) Councilmember Oddie encouraged having a Fix It Clinic in Alameda. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the Alameda Library will have an event like the Fix It Clinic. Jane Chisaki, Library Director, responded the Alameda Library does not do fix it clinics due to possible damage to carpeting; Mastic Center has expressed an interest in holding a fix it clinic. (17-527) Vice Mayor Vella stated that she that received emails regarding trying to diversify the Economic Development Strategic Plan Board; she also received emails questioning why cannabis is not included in the plan. The City Manager responded that she understood the direction for the Economic Development Strategic Plan is to be grassroots; additional citizens have been invited to participate to make the group more diverse. (17-528) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he and Mayor Spencer represented the City at the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) liaison committee; EBRPD is putting a lot of money into Alameda. (17-529) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended the lead poisoning prevention commission meeting; noted that she is grateful that Alameda did not cede local control over cell phone towers to the telecommunications industry. (17-530) Mayor Spencer announced the Alameda Theater is showing the film Fallen, sponsored by the Police Officers Association, on Monday, September 11th. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-20,24,"The Assistant City Manager stated that he has heard from four Councilmembers to focus on housing and the Marina Village Inn project; staff needs to work on the schedule and analysis of true costs; public health came up in a number of different contexts; staff can provide additional options related to public health and the investment in a mental health clinic or other local support for public health; business assistance did not come up more than once; it would be great to hear Council direction related to the General Fund and revenue loss; ARPA funding would come back and become part of a broader ability to fund different priorities; the funding is flexible in some ways; staff can continue to refine the process; the deadline to fully program the funds is the end of 2024; the funding can be looked at in future budget cycles. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the approach of a broader spending ability; stated ARPA is wonderful; however, the City is limited to the regulations put forth by the federal government; if the money goes into the General Fund, the City has much more flexibility for other projects. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is supportive of the funding being placed in the General Fund; he would like to ensure the City has some kind of spending guidelines; expressed concern about a grab bag approach; the flexibility in spending should go towards meeting goals; Council is still honing versus selecting projects; the Assistant City Manager has outlined the matter well; the goals should be: housing, mental health and public health related programs which cannot be reimbursable under the program. Vice Mayor Vella stated Council can outline the revenue loss portion; expressed concern about impacts to services relative to priorities and revenue loss; businesses are also included in impacts to loss of services; Council has done a number of things for the business districts, including outreach and services; Council has provided many grants with City funds; the City can leverage funds to provide over-arching services that meet a number of different needs. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has not heard additional support for the Smart City Master Plan and hotspots; inquired whether there are other planned funding options. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the Smart City Master Plan and hotspots; requested clarification about the categories. The Assistant City Manager stated the focus in the staff report focused on four categories based on input from Council in May; staff attempted to focus where Council desires to place funding; there is a possibility of adding to the program as it progresses; the current planning stage of the Smart City Master Plan has funding; however, funding for build-out has not yet been identified; if other funding sources become available for housing and Marina Village Inn, staff can reallocate excess funding on a rolling basis; staff would prefer to have ample time to properly address projects. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 17",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,24,"Planning & Building Department These minutes were approved at the July 11, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 24 June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf CityCouncil,2007-01-16,24,"from the day the price was received from the Contractor, which was last week. Commissioner deHaan stated the steel galvanizing issue needs to be addressed now. The Development Manager stated the City's Architect does not feel that the project's integrity would be compromised by deleting the steel galvanizing. Chair Johnson stated the Commission would be able to make decisions when items are brought back. Commissioner deHaan requested that the Development Manager provide a list of items [value engineering add back ] to be considered along with a timeline. Commissioner Matarrese requested: 1) an Off Agenda Report on the value engineered items, 2) any Cineplex and parking garage exterior design changes be approved by the Commission, and 3) a timeline outlining when decisions need to be made for adding back value engineered items; stated a decision would need to be made prior to pouring concrete on whether to use galvanized steel versus painted steel. The Development Manager clarified that all the column bases have granite tile. ADJOURNMEN'T There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 4 January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-24,24,"buffer zone for after school programs and 600 feet for learning centers; expressed concern over shifting the areas for every RFP. The Assistant City Attorney stated the sensitive use should be reviewed when the RFP is published to allow people submitting proposals to research the sensitive uses. In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry whether sensitive uses could be from the last RFP, the Assistant City Attorney stated the uses should be identified the next time an RFP is issued since the last RFP has already passed. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees tutorial/learning centers could be 600 feet and others could not have a buffer; inquired whether or not Ruby's would be included. The Economic Development Manager responded that she would look into the matter and provide a response. Mayor Spencer stated a definition of tutorial/learning center should be provided when the matter returns. Vice Mayor Vella concurred. Mayor Spencer noted there are not three votes to eliminate the buffer zone. Vice Mayor Vella stated after the definition of tutorial center is clarified, she might be willing to eliminate the buffer zone. The Economic Development Manager inquired whether the current zoning districts should be maintained or expanded. Councilmember Oddie, Vice Mayor Vella and Mayor Spencer expressed support for allowing the use in C-1 and C-M, not Alameda Point (AP). Councilmember Matarrese expressed support for maintaining the current zoning districts. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for adding the C-M zoning district, but not C-1 or AP. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft would consider C-1 if the use had to be cleared with the neighborhood, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she would consider a process that includes a neighborhood meeting; noted parking is a consideration. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry about the type of process legally allowed for C- 1, the Assistant City Attorney stated typically noticing happens at the Use Permit level; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf CityCouncil,2017-10-03,24,"Emeryville; she hopes Alameda can sponsor another training. (17-598) Councilmember Oddie stated that he enjoyed visiting the Sister City in Korea. (17-599) Mayor Spencer thanked staff for their efforts in putting the Sister City visit together. (17-600) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she volunteered at the Alameda Food Bank and attended the League of California Cities implicit bias training. (17-601) Mayor Spencer stated tomorrow is coffee with a Police Officer from 10:00 am to noon at Starbucks. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 10:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf CityCouncil,2012-06-19,24,"Councilmember deHaan started the matter is a continuing step in the review process. Mayor Gilmore stated having five members makes having a quorum easier. In response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry regarding other Boards and Commissions with five members, the City Clerk listed seven bodies: Civil Service Board, Historical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Commission, Library Board, Open Government Commission, Public Art Commission and Public Utilities Board. Councilmember Johnson stated the two open spots have made having a quorum difficult. Councilmember Tam noted the Recreation and Park Commission President was directed to have the Commission consider the matter and come back to Council. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes: Councilmember Johnson - 1. (12-330) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 2-67 Relating to Prevailing Wages. The Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation. Speaker: Andy Slivka, Carpenters Union/Building Trades, stated that the one thing he disagrees with is the staff report indication that there would be 15% increase in cost; urged adoption of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Bonta moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (12-331) Ordinance No. 3048 ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing Subsections 18-5.10 (Lateral Testing Upon Sale). 18-5.11 (Private Sewer Lateral Testing Procedures and Requirements), 18-5.12 (Failure of Test), 18-5.13 (Lateral Certification), 18-5.14 (Condominium and Cooperative Apartment Buildings) of Section 18-5 (Abatement of Improper Sewer Connections) in their Entirety, and by Adding Section 18-6 (Sewer Lateral Testing) to Article 1 (Sewers) of Chapter XVIII (Sewer and Water). Finally passed. The City Engineer gave a brief presentation. Vice Mayor Bonta moved final passage of the ordinance. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf CityCouncil,2019-03-19,24,"the OPEB liability. Councilmember Daysog stated the correct staffing expenditures is short-changing residents out of services needed in an effort to put reserves to OPEB payments. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated neither the Police Chief nor the Fire Chief have said that they will not hire staff members; open positions are attempted to be filled year after year. Councilmember Vella requested clarification of there being more retirees than active staff; stated the vacancies are in two departments that have a difficult time recruiting due to an involved process of academy training and background checks; inquired if the increases shown in the presentation are due to new discount rates from CalPERS. The Finance Director responded in the negative; stated CalPERS has changed assumptions including how long retirees live, demographics and investment types; outlined CalPERS new fee; stated the fee will grow over time; outlined the City's plan to pay down the upcoming debt; stated the goal is to drive the pension costs down. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important for Council to monitor what CalPERS is proposing; monthly Board Meetings are held discussing investments and speakers are allowed; discussed a CalPERS 2018 conference and an upcoming session for elected officials. Councilmember Daysog stated that he was not implying department heads were purposely holding employment down; however, the effect of holding employment down should be considered. Councilmember Oddie stated as Council goes forward, the City will have more employees on PEPRA versus classic CalPERS; over time, the liability will drop; by putting the excess reserves to work, the City has saved a million dollars a year in PERS; in the event of an economic downturn, the liability can be paid versus cutting officers or closing a Fire Station; the revenues appear to be under estimated and expenses appear to be overestimated; he would prefer the budget be more accurate. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether or not work performed for the State is reimbursed. The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; outlined reimbursement policies. The Fire Chief stated the costs includes overtime of personnel, vehicle use charges, and the City's overhead rate. The Finance Director stated in Fiscal Year 2017-2018, 195 agencies made additional contributions to CalPERS above and beyond the normal requirement. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf GolfCommission,2018-02-15,24,"Corica Golf 2018 PREVIEW Annual Plan New Putting Green: Work on a new 10,000 Sq. ft. practice putting green is underway January 2018, scheduled to reopen summer 2018 Social Patio: Area around shop, Jim's and clubhouse/existing patio is being resurfaced with stone pavers. A 2ft. stone wall matching the bridges on south will be placed to define area. There will also be two custom fire pits and expanded social areas and new Commuters Memorial. Expected completion is spring 2018. Design of new green and social patio } Demo of practice range 20",GolfCommission/2018-02-15.pdf CityCouncil,2022-03-01,24,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the proposed 60 day notice. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff considered the 60 day notice proposed by Councilmember Knox White. The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded not exactly; stated that she is unclear whether the existing emergency ordinance includes the 60 day notice; the proposed change is new. The Assistant City Attorney stated if Council approves the proposal from Councilmember Knox White, staff will need to add language to the ordinance clarifying the 60 day notice and delay of banked increases; the original ordinance does not have the language coupled with banked rent increases; the original ordinance 60 day notice applies to all rent increases; the new ordinance only addresses AGA rent increases and leaves out the proposed 60 day notice of banked rent increases. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has worked hard trying to keep people housed; she would like to ensure the City is continuing along those lines; she understands that it is time to move forward. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [introduction of the ordinance] with amendment that the use of banked AGA will not be available until 60 days after the rescission of the local emergency. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the May 1st date is part of the motion, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City will be sending notifications and how the City will notify tenants about the changes to ensure timelines are understood. Mr. Katz responded staff will provide a variety of outreach on the matter; stated staff will send out an e-newsletter to subscribers announcing the change and will put out a headline on the rent program website; staff will send out new maximum allowable rent increase letters to landlords and tenants. Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for staff providing as much as possible to make it clear; stated multiple websites are available, which can be updated with information; she would like staff to streamline and find ways to clarify and provide an insert; expressed concern about staff only relying on the internet or emails; stated that she would like the information provided with enough time so that people do not scramble. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for staff including information about how renters can qualify or sign up for assistance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2022 22",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf CityCouncil,2019-07-16,24,"Councilmember Daysog stated the people want more information; Council must recognize the implementation strategies resulting should offer language such as: ""throughout this process, residents of Alameda have voiced a desire for not only transparency in the form of any information including electronic recordings being released, but also for strong remedies including censure as well as a City recall;"" expressed support for reflecting the fact that the people have made requests. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the people have said a lot of things; the requests have been made by few, not all; the language is going beyond the scope of what the presiding judge is asking for; Council should be responsive to the findings; there is still time as matters come back to Council for implementation of what the people want; Council has completed its current task. Vice Mayor Knox White stated the addition from Councilmember Daysog is not an appropriate statement; the letter to the judge is not a letter to the community. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would hate for the matter to come back in September due to lack of consensus for the first and last paragraph language. Councilmember Daysog stated people are upset about the Grand Jury report implying that some are above the law; Council has a process in place which is not transparent enough to gather information to demonstrate the extent which some are above the law; people have been frustrated by the inadequacy of remedies in 7-3; he would like to capture that in the letter to the judge due to the importance and historic nature. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated everything Council has done in agreement with the Grand Jury's findings and responses drafted does everything Councilmember Daysog has requested without specific interpretation; there is not a consensus to move forward with Councilmember Daysog's proposed language; the Council is ready to address the issue head-on; there are other ways to communicate to the people; it is time to put closure on the matter. Councilmember Daysog stated the power of the document is in the fact that a majority of Councilmembers have agreed with Grand Jury findings; it is time to move on. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.] Vice Mayor Knox White stated tonight was not an easy evening for any Councilmember; things have not gone the way they should have; mistakes have been made and that has been acknowledged unanimously and civilly; the community must move forward and move on; both the investigative report and the Grand Jury came to the right conclusion; people make mistakes, it does not mean Councilmembers should be removed from office; Council does not have a censure process, but this is as close as possible; public bodies have censure; requested the community to find a way to join Council in figuring out ways to move forward; expressed gratitude toward Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 19 July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf CityCouncil,2015-01-21,24,"the public an opportunity to discuss the existing practices and protocols on the conduct of City business, which is a straight forward description; Council is going to discuss existing practices and protocols in the referenced ordinances; there is a frame of reference for discussion; his sense is that the mayor put the matter on a Wednesday night because there are not going to be any substantive outcomes. Stated that she was excited to see the matter on the agenda; expressed support for an open house; encouraged greater participation on boards and commissions: Carol Gottstein, Alameda. Encouraged the Council to impart an appearance of fairness; discussed calling speakers; stated important issues should not be addressed late: Elizabeth Tuckwell, Alameda. Mayor Spencer stated tonight is a workshop; she appreciates the audience informing the Council how meetings can be held to encourage participation and be transparent; she wanted the meeting on a special night because Council is not going on a retreat; a retreat would be a similar event; the Sunshine Ordinance limits the way business is done in front of the public [requires broadcast]; that she appreciates Councilmember Daysog and Ezzy Aschraft's comments; she worked with staff; quite a bit of time was spent drafting the information so that the public would be aware of what would be discussed; the objective is to help Council move forward; noted she calls speakers in the order submitted. Stated people watch meetings at home; Power Points should be shown on the broadcast and there have been audio issues: Richard Bangert, Alameda. The City Clerk stated staff is working on a split screen solution for Power Point presentations; addressed audio transmission issues; encouraged contacting the City Clerk's office when issues occur. Vice Mayor Matarrese noted the video went dark last night at 1:00 a.m. on Comcast; stated the open house presentations by departments should happen outside a regular meeting; adopting Robert Rules of Order to keep order could benefit the rules; suggested establishing a Council rules subcommittee similar to a previous Charter review subcommittee. Mayor Spencer stated that she is used to working with a modified Roberts Rules of Order; concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese; it is very important; her understanding is the motion is to be done immediately under Roberts Rules of Order, which is different than the way she has been doing it; tonight is an opportunity for the Council, with input from the public, to address what procedural aspects of meetings should look like; she would support the recommendation and could bring a referral forward to have the discussion. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated anyone interested in bringing the matter forward could Special Meeting Alameda City Council 24 January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf CityCouncil,2021-10-19,24,"Councilmember Knox White moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m. in order to hear the Cultivate agreement [paragraph no. 21-652]. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which failed since it required four affirmative-votes, by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of continuing the Cultivate agreement to Section 6 of the November 2, 2021 agenda. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. Councilmember Daysog stated the magnitude of the matter is beyond the initial $298 million POB; when the interest is taken into account, the sum is $420 million; he understands the net present value of the figure is different; Council should not take the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) insight related to POBs lightly; the GFOA are the people who certify the annual budget and are a reputable organization that the City turns to for validation; the GFOA's advisory states that State and local governments should not issue POBs; Council should frame its discussion based on the vantage point of the GFOA; discussed how POBs previously worked for cities; stated cities would invest the POB money into the market in the hopes that the Return On Investment (ROI) would be above the 3.5% interest rate; Council is not attempting a previous POB approach; the new approach would generate and issue a $298 million POB in order to pre-pay the City's unfunded liability; expressed support for the new POB approach; stated the new approach is not without risks; if the return rate from CalPERS is not be 7% in the next year, the unfunded liability rate would recalibrate; the City will have to make up for the shortfall; the budgetary savings would be south of $2.7 million; CalPERS' return falling to the same amount of or less than the interest being paid is a concern and eliminates the POB savings; outlined employee hires eliminating the budgetary savings, which eliminates the purpose of the POB; stated the City Manager is correct in his recommendation for a strict, fiscal strategy in order to ensure locking the budgetary savings; CalPERS might have a return rate higher than 7% and will not issue a refund for any excess paid; the City will still pay the annual debt service; he recommends going slow; he will not support the matter. Mr. Morales stated the matter is complex; CalPERS returned 21.4% in the past fiscal year; the City will get a credit of $74.3 million; CalPERS has announced that the discount rate has to go down to 6.8%, which increases liability; the City will net $24 million; the $295 million liability will likely be somewhere closer to $241 million; a demographic adjustment always comes into the process; there is a lot of estimation because the POB is a $300 million liability which changes each year; he recommends the $295 million amount because of the CalPERS adjustment; the City does not have to borrow the full amount; there are a lot of mathematics and moving parts; outlined credits and cash flows; stated impacts would drive payments down; projections have been shared with City staff; the City should ask for the full amount and decide the amount, structure and when to perform the POB in the future. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the GFOA advisory. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 October 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf CityCouncil,2021-03-16,24,"communications goals, social media would be put on hold and what is adopted by staff should be shared; 5) City leaders to be notified; 6) come back in the two year budget with information on a Block by Block, or similar type of budget request, that could be considered or adopted, including funding for mental health; 7) supporting the business community; 8) legislative effort direction and updates on AB 1400 and 550, which he believes is already in the Legislative Agenda; and 9) regular mental health and de- escalation training as well. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the funding for mental health is a CATT type program. Councilmember Knox White responded there was direction from Vice Mayor Vella about CATT like trainings for Who to Call; stated the mental health is for a CAHOOTS or Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland (MACRO) program, which is more like Community Paramedicine; stated that he would still like to address the Steering Committee's other three recommendations and other Council recommendations. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the motion could include direction to disclose the pay of Block by Block employees, to which Councilmember Knox White responded that he takes it as staff direction, but absolutely given Block by Block is not being approved in the motion; Council is requesting information to come back. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired regarding social media, what would happen if the Police Department is looking for someone who has committed a crime, to which Councilmember Knox White responded the City has its own well-followed social media account, which could be used. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. *** (21-174) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing each Councilmember to have 5 additional minutes. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. *** Councilmember Knox White stated before making another motion, he would be interested in hearing whether there is interest in hiring a Crime Analyst; expressed support for the Crime Analyst position; stated the City Manager should decide which department will house the position; Vice Mayor Vella made good points about the right place. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-01-16,24,"Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf CityCouncil,2017-11-07,24,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether food can be legally added, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer stated a Council majority would like to add food. The Community Development Director stated the word food could be stricken. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would support delivery only businesses. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like data on the number of permits issued for delivery businesses. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would support one delivery business, Council did not agree. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would be interested in having the matter return at the beginning of the year. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there will not be enough meaningful data. Mayor Spencer expressed concern with having businesses outside of Alameda start deliveries before local business owners have a chance to open; stated that she is not agreeable to the 2 employees on labor peace. Councilmember Oddie stated that he thought the previous meeting was to provide direction; he can support 10 employees for labor peace. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports 10 employees for labor peace; the local ownership clause needs to be removed from the general conditions for local businesses. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like language on the distances clarified. The Community Development Director stated she has a list and can recap the ordinance. The City Attorney stated staff needs to have the exact language if changes are going to be made. The Community Development Director stated the smoking ordinance language has been addressed and provided to Council. Councilmember Oddie moved introduction of the smoking ordinance. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 November 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf CityCouncil,2017-10-17,24,"ASCA's recommendation to City Council for approval. Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff weighs in at all, to which the Community Development Management Analyst responded in the negative. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to ensure staff has reviewed the itineraries and what ASCA is recommending. The Community Development Management Analyst stated staff is proposing that ASCA take the lead on all planning and execution of the visits; staff will still have a role in communicating with ASCA to ensure Councilmembers have all needed information. The City Manager stated staff will continue to be involved as they have been; staff does not have the time or resources to put more into the process unless the number of visits is limited. Mayor Spencer stated a sample itinerary of the trip should be added; expressed concerns from previous trips with not providing enough time to prepare for public events. Vice Mayor Vella stated staff should work with ASCA to ensure they know Council's commitments and when delegates come to visit, that it should be calendared on the Council's schedule. The Community Development Management Analyst responded staff will work with ASCA under the guidelines. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the guidelines cut back staff time due to the number of cities Alameda will be partnering with; expressed concern with changes in staff's response time to ASCA's questions. The City Manager responded staff scheduling and coordinating with ASCA. The Community Development Management Analyst stated staff will continue to support Council, the visits and review the itinerary; staff is requesting the first draft and redrafting of the itinerary be done by ASCA. Mayor Spencer stated staff has the connections for the delegates; ASCA needs support to come up with the itineraries. The Community Development Management Analyst stated staff will continue to support ASCA, contact companies and put together tours; staff is asking for support from ASCA. Mayor Spencer stated on the slide about ASCA's responsibilities, it states: ""plan and execute all events, delegations and visits, program activities, and fundraising activities;' it is not appropriate for ASCA to do all the listed tasks. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-17.pdf CityCouncil,2006-09-19,24,"Komorous-Towey Architects, Inc. by increasing the Contract amount by $5,000 to provide additional Architectural and Construction Administration Services for the Civic Center Parking Garage. [For discussion and motion, refer to the recommendation to approve the amended Contract with Architectural Resources Group paragraph no. 06-056CIC. ] (*06-461CC/06-058CIC) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2006 Fourth Quarter. Accepted. AGENDA ITEMS (06-462CC/06-059CIC) Public Hearing to consider certification of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, approval of a General Plan Amendment, a Master Plan Amendment, a Development Agreement Amendment, two new Development Agreements, a Disposition and Development Agreement to replace 1,300,000 square feet of approved but not yet constructed office and research and development uses with 400,000 square feet of office use, 300,000 square feet of retail use, 20,000 square feet of health club, and up to 300 residential units in the Catellus Mixed Use Development i and adoption/introduction of related resolutions/ordinances. The project area if located south of the Oakland Alameda Estuary, north of the College of Alameda and the Bayport Residential Project, east of Coast Guard Housing and west of Webster Street. The site is in the MX (Mixed Use) Zoning District. Continued to October 17, 2006. (06-060CIC) Commissioner deHaan stated the Farmer's Market parking site is for sale; a top priority should be to obtain Webster Street parking; requested that the matter be discussed at a future date. Chair Johnson requested an Off Agenda Report on the matter; stated staff has been working with the owner to buy the property. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 3 and Redevelopment Authority, Community Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners September 19, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf CityCouncil,2021-05-04,24,"way or another; the magnitude of the decision is incredible; ACI, as well as any other waste organization, has an economic activity in the City of Alameda of roughly $23 million per year; in order to maintain the $23 million per year, Alameda residents must pay as rate- payers; the amount over 20 years is roughly $287 million to be given out on a non-compete sole source basis; expressed concern about extending the contract on a non-compete sole source basis; the information is not new; his views are the same from October 2020; however, is worth restating; outlined the presentation from a residential rate comparison; stated one would think there could be a reduction in the rate for residential 30 to 35 gallon bins over time; the rate increases slightly from the current average; the increase in rate and the magnitude of dollars says that Council needs to look at the contract from a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) basis; the reason the City contracts with ACI is based on a previous competitive basis in 2002; he was on Council when ACI was selected; ACI has provided good service; he appreciates the annual reports provided; there is an issue of the magnitude of the money being dealt with; data points suggesting there should be a decline in rates; when he looks back on the October 2020 meeting regarding ACI, the scoring done through the survey showed ACI with a B+ grade; outlined ACI's total satisfaction of 89% in the context of AMP whose total satisfaction is 96%; stated AMP's total satisfaction is the gold standard; Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) scored higher than ACI in satisfaction; total favorability for ACI scored at 83% and AMP scored 91%; reasonable rates for ACI scored 74% and AMP scored 82%; the survey shows scores that do not indicate A grade services; percentages showing an A grade might be considered for a non-compete sole source contract; he does not see the grounds for a sole source contract; utility business is tough; ACI has done a good job and provided incredible reports; questioned whether the City is getting the best dollar it can; stated the only way to know is to put out an RFP; ACI should lower rates; he is not convinced a case has been made for going forward on a non-compete sole source contract; expressed support for going out to bid; stated that he believes ACI would prove to be successful in an RFP process. (21-310) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining agenda items and the two Council Referrals, after 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of hearing the Council Referral requesting a performance review [paragraph no. 21-315]. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3. Mr. Hilton stated there have been recent competitive procurements in the Alameda County market to inform what might happen through the bid process; the processes resulted in 20 to 30% rate increases; when negotiating directly with ACI about large rate increases, staff expressed concern; the desire was to see how good of a deal could be provided for the City; in order to benchmark the deal, staff had to look at cost factors in other competitive deals; staff looked at hourly labor, fuel, maintenance and General and Administrative (G&A) expense percentages to ensure there were no charges for overhead; staff looked at profit and what is being paid for recycling, disposal and composting costs and benchmarked Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 May 4, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf CityCouncil,2020-06-02,24,"Councilmember Vella inquired whether a hold for an agenda item will be placed for future Council to either affirm, amend or deny the ballot measure, should any be placed on future election dates. The City Attorney responded there is no legal requirement to offer an agenda item to a new Council; staff can perform the request if desired or the new Council can direct staff to bring an item forward. Councilmember Vella inquired whether Council can indicate the item is currently being declined, but request to have the item return. The City Attorney responded Council may choose to not take action and direct staff to bring the item back at a date specific. Councilmember Oddie inquired the reason Section 22-7 and 22-8 are included; questioned whether the item is related to Council pay. The City Clerk responded the Sections were selected as general cleanup; noted per- diem amounts are set by the State and hours listed in Section 22-8 are not what the set City hours have been. Councilmember Vella expressed support for bifurcating the discussion; expressed support for moving cleanup language forward; suggestion Council to take a vote on each item. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether each item could be taken as: A [Cleanup], B [City Prosecutor], C [Council pay], D [Section 7-3], and E [Article 26], to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated E was the previous agenda item and has been addressed. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of directing staff to return with language for section A, cleanup language, for the November 2020 ballot, with the direction to use ""they and their."" Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Vella stated that she would like to ensure to include removal of ""his/her"" terms. Councilmember Oddie expressed support for staff to use the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ) caucus at the League of Cities' model language for gender neutral language samples. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2017-12-14,24,"requirement, even when on public property. While the city may wish to foster educational opportunities, the public school system, including charter schools, is available as an alternative, as well as other religious schools that accept students of all religious faiths. Footnote No. 7 Moreover, as discussed above, courts have rejected the claim that an arm's-length lease of public property to a religious group gives the government's ""imprimatur of approval"" and ""endorsement"" to the religious beliefs of the group. (See Hawley v. City of Cleveland, supra. 24 F.3d at 822; Christian Science v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 784 F.2d at 1014- 1017; Brashich v. Port Auth. of New York, supra, 484 F.Supp. at 703; Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization v. Los Angeles Community College Dist., supra, 218 Cal.App.3d at 94-95.) While the issue is not free from doubt, we believe that a court would side with the private religious school officials' free exercise of religion, speech, and association constitutional rights, regardless of which balancing test (the compelling state interest test or rational basis test) is used. (See Christian Science v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 784 F.2d at 1012-1013.) In answer to the third question, therefore, we conclude that a city may not refuse to lease a public building to a private nonprofit religious school solely on the basis that the school is not open to all religious beliefs of prospective students. ***** Footnote No. 1 ""No state shall make or enforce any laws which shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."" Footnote No. 2 California courts have interpreted these provisions in the same manner as federal courts have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment. (See Dept. of Mental Hygiene v. Kirshner (1965) 62 Cal.2d 586, 588; In re Evans (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1270; Reece v. Alcoholic Bev. Etc. Appeals Bd. (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 675,679.) Footnote No. 3 These federal constitutional protections are enforceable against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. (See Everson v. Board of Education (1947) 330 U.S. 1, 8; Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296, 303-304.) Footnote No. 4 ""[A] neural law of general application need not be supported by a compelling state interest 11 (People v. Peck (1996) 52 Cal.App.4t 351, 358.) However, if the government burden is upon not only an individual's free exercise of religion right but also upon some other constitutional right such as freedom of speech or freedom of association (U.S. Const., 1st Amend.), a compelling state interest might be required for imposition of the state burden (see Employment Div., Ore. Dept. Of Human Res. v. Smith, supra, 494 U.S. at 881; Widmar v. Vincent (1981) 454 U.S. 263, 269-270; Christian Science v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1986) 784 F.2d 1010, 1012-1013; Smith v. Fair Employment & Housing Som. (1996) 12 Cal.4th 1143, 1164-1165). Footnote No. 5 All references hereafter to the Civil Code are by section number only. Footnote No. 6 The legislative history of the Act fully supports the conclusion that the Legislature intended to exclude religious schools from the purview of the Act. (See Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts, supra, 17 Cal.4th at 709-715 (conc. opn. of Mosk, J.).) Footnote No. 7 Indeed, we have not been apprised that a Catholic school would deny admission to a Jewish child or a Muslim school would deny admission to a Buddhist child. We assume that the question presented has a factual basis.",RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf CityCouncil,2022-02-01,24,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is important to educate the community on options; the referral speaks to the ability of housing at Alameda Point; she would like to hear from staff on reasonable housing numbers that can be added and locations for housing; the Navy cap considered the balance of housing and jobs; however, with the need for more housing, she is not sure the balance will be held to; it is important for Council to make informed decisions; Council cannot make the decision without staff providing information. On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 3. (22-090) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Daysog) Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she discussed the matter with the Recreation and Parks Director; the area where the fence is being considered is hazardous and not ready for the public due to safety. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of supporting the referral with direction to staff that the fence be moved to the new easements as safety allows. Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern over not understanding the safety issues present; stated different portions of the park have had issues; she agrees with allowing public access; however, she would like to understand the safety issues and any associated costs; expressed support for the direction including the matter being heard by the Recreation and Parks Commission (RPC) for input and prioritization of funding; the matter can return to Council with budget information. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Vice Mayor Vella; stated the last thing Council should do is take away money from other prioritized park projects; expressed support for the motion; however, Vice Mayor Vella makes a good point about having the matter go to the RPC for review. The City Clerk stated Council is limited to three actions for referrals: take no action, refer the matter to staff to schedule at a future City Council item or dispositive action which is limited to legislative matters of urgency. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council can modify the direction or whether the language has to remain as shown in the referral. The City Clerk stated the recent process adopted yielded a two-step process to allow a referral to come back on a Council agenda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 1, 2022 24",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf CityCouncil,2022-05-03,24,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the term by right is used multiple times throughout the HE, including low barrier navigation centers; inquired whether the City's legal counsel believes Council is required to include low barrier navigation centers. The Assistant City Attorney responded State law requires the City to identify locations for low barrier navigation centers; stated staff has identified various locations. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated every place shown by right is required by State law; the only exception to the requirement is the R-5 district; the requirement is unclear due to how the R-5 district is structured. Councilmember Knox White stated all projects have used density bonus due to the City's zoning; inquired whether density bonus is not something that can be automatically granted, must be requested and a case has to be made. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated State density bonus is structured if a developer voluntarily offers to provide a certain amount of affordable housing, the developer is eligible for a density bonus and waivers; since the City's existing zoning has a multi-family prohibition, the only way to produce more than two units in a building is by offering additional affordable housing; the offer creates eligibility for waivers to the multi-family prohibition. Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the requirement to have developers show a financial reason for the density bonus has been removed from density bonus law. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded State density bonus law has been amended over the years; stated the law has become more lenient over the years; there are two aspects to the law; one is the waiver of things, such as height limits; a more rigid requirement used to relate to financial incentives; a developer had to show the financial unviability in order to qualify for a waiver; the burden now falls on the City. Urged Council be respectful of the will of the voters; stated upzoning density in neighborhoods and increasing heights is clearly counter to the Measure Z vote; expressed support for Alameda complying with State housing law; stated the proposed HE is an extreme interpretation; expressed concern about taller buildings; urged Council continue the hearing to after May 9th: Elizabeth Greene, Alameda. Stated the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) created a plan to protect the integrity of Webster Street and restrict heights; the plan is viable and speaks to protecting the historical value: Sandra Pilon, WABA Stated that she has continued to try and be involved with proposals to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); the HE does not include allocations without undue density increases and by right upzoning; expressed concern about Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 3, 2022 20",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-27,24,"property which generated approximately $200,000; at the time, her recommendation was to put the money into a facility maintenance reserve; the policy is to take one-time property sale revenues and put the money into an open space fund; a small amount was used to pay for the final purchase of the Beltline property; the question is what to do with the money when the City decides to liquidate property. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the $400,000 [set aside for a fire station] is in the General Fund. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the $400,000 is in a reserve fund in the General Fund and is not included in the $12 million General Fund balance. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City is paying a lot of rent to house fire fighters next to a fire station that is not earthquake safe; a lot of money would be needed for expensive repairs in order to use the fire station; the City could spend money on something that could be constructed and City owned instead of putting money into something that the City does not own and would not use long term; that she is trying the nudge the process along. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated site location is not easy, especially because location impacts response time. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a letter has been received from SunCal regarding a development program; there have been disagreements on how things have been charged; that she assumes staff would come back with explanations when discrepancies are reconciled. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that she would review the accounts and ensure that everything is reconciled. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the City needs to get some answers from SunCal also. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the City would need to get information on eligible pre-development expenses; however, the point is moot now. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the budget as presented [adoption of the resolutions]; stated that he appreciates the clarity, sacrifices, and hard work of the entire workforce; he does not expect the budget to be static but moveable through quarterly updates. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he is Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 24 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf CityCouncil,2010-04-20,24,"transportation mitigation for each unit up to 1,000 units, which is described as the first phase of the project; in return, Chinatown agreed that they would not submit a lawsuits for the first phase. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how the matter fits with current discussions, to which the Planning Services Manager responded the mitigation payment still applies; mitigation required for units beyond the first 1,000 is unresolved with Chinatown. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) plan was for 1,800 units; inquired how the proposal for more units fits into the agreement. The Planning Services Manager responded the agreement requires that the City coordinate with Chinatown through the entire environmental process, allows for a pre- determined mitigation payment for the first 1,000 units, and does not limit what the City can do in terms of an ultimate development envelope for Alameda Point; the City understood that there would be more than 1,000 units; the key is to coordinate the EIR process with the Chinatown process. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there have to be mitigation measures after first 1,000 units. The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the Planning Board representative on the Chinatown committee does wants to start conversations now and does not want to wait until the EIR is published. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what number is being used as the basis for discussions. The Planning Services Manager responded Chinatown work with whatever number the City puts out; until recently, Chinatown was working with the Measure B number; Chinatown will be working with the new application number once the Notice of Preparation is released. Speakers: Frank Faye, SunCal; and Rosemary McNally, Alameda. Following Mr. Faye's comments, Vice Chair/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether costs that SunCal wishes to recover could be broken down. Mr. Faye responded in the affirmative; stated SunCal is not seeking to recover costs; the arrangement with the City is that monies are pulled out of a special escrow account set up with the City quite some time ago; the City has a record of each and every expenditure from the time that checks were issued and payments were made; that SunCal is happy to make anything available. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there would be a Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 4 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf CityCouncil,2007-12-04,24,"improvements are estimated at $1 billion; the Cruise Terminal did not go forward because of a $144 million bill to retrofit the piers at the Cruise Terminal San Francisco's challenge is much bigger than Alameda Landing but is similar to the challenges of upgrading the wharf to current seismic conditions and Uniform Building Code as well as geotechnical issues. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what the anticipated cost would be. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the cost would be approximately $15 million in order to accommodate Clif Bar. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether said cost was new compared to the original estimate, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what was the original estimate. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded that she would need to check; stated an additional $30 million to $35 was originally budgeted to retrofit the wharf and is cut back to $15 million to preserve the warehouse for Clif Bar; the developer states that it is infeasible to spend an additional $15 million to $20 million to preserve the remainder of the wharf; the developer believes that the redesign maintains a lot of the public amenities and benefits and is a better plan in some ways in that the entire waterfront experience is not seven feet above the water; there is the ability to step down and access the water at the water level. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he appreciates the history construction costs escalate; costs for preserving the warehouse and rest of the wharf are not worth holding up the project everything should be done to recycle materials if a couple of buildings are lost; historic significance can be preserved in photos and videos; the buildings are warehouses on a dock; he likes the idea of getting closer to the water's edge and getting millions of dollars in sales tax which helps to have a safe City and good parks; everything should be done to underground the 115kV line, including pursuing Homeland Security money; keeping the project on track is important. Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated that she concurs with Councilmember/Commissione: Matarrese; there has been a six-month Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 10 and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf CityCouncil,2008-10-21,24,"along with a revenue source by detail. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the amount charged needs to include the amount of time a Captain spends overseeing contract overtime. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding the Meyers House, the City Manager stated the amount was removed from the Recreation budget and was not funded. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commission Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 7 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 21, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf CityCouncil,2015-11-04,24,"504 The City Attorney responded staff can do so. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding a referendum, the Assistant City Attorney outlined the process. Councilmember Oddie stated that he would want to extend the moratorium if a referendum is filed. The City Attorney stated the moratorium could be extended until the new ordinance is in effect. The City Clerk read the definition of base rent to add to the ordinance: ""Base rent' means the rental amount, including any amount paid directly to the Housing Provider for parking, storage or any other fee or charge associated with the tenancy (other than fees or charges for utilities paid directly to the housing provider), that the Tenant is required to pay to the Housing Provider in the month immediately preceding the effective date of the rent increase."" Vice Mayor Matarrese stated since the moratorium is being conditioned with 8%, so he does not believe there should be an appeal process for hardships. The Assistant City Attorney noted a procedure should be provided if the moratorium is extended. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the language should remain unchanged. Councilmember Oddie requested the wording be read back. The City Clerk read the language added to Section 2 (a) and (b). The City Attorney clarified the language added to evictions would be: ""as authorized by State law."" The City Clerk noted the definition of rent would also be added. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the urgency ordinance as amended. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 1:36 a.m. Special Meeting Alameda City Council November 4, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf CityCouncil,2011-02-15,24,"Year 2009-2010 and was in the norm for projections. In response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson's inquiry regarding the Community Development positions, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the Community Development Department is doing much better than in the last three years; currently, Community Development funds are $40,000 in the black; staff expects to break even by the end of the year even with budget adjustments; permits have increased by 37% with a 70% increase in construction value; two code enforcement inspectors have been converted to permit positions; code enforcement generates over $260,000 in revenue and expenditures are at $179,000; a temporary, part-time counter planner has been doing a tremendous job; staff would like to change the position to a full-time, permanent position. The Building Official stated the part-time counter planner has provided consistency and improved customer service. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated some of the revenue from the sale of the Alameda Towne Centre sale should be set aside for capital improvements; the money is one-time revenue. The Acting City Manager/Executive Director stated most of what is in the General Fund are one-time expenses. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson inquired whether the $2.1 in property transfer tax [from the sale of the Alameda Towne Center] would be spent through June. The Controller responded in the affirmative; stated some payments are required versus discretionary; the City cannot get out of the $860,000 EMS payment and $575,000 in labor settlements; the cable studio upgrade expenditure is optional. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated cable studio upgrading needs to be done; maintaining fiscal discipline in Internal Service Funds is important. The Controller stated all funds are contributing to Internal Service Funds; staff wants to bring up the fund balance in the unemployment insurance fund. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated departments need to build the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The Acting City Manager/Executive Director stated some expenses need to be paid one way or another; requesting departments to eat a cost would result in being over budget. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Johnson stated the $2.1 million is Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 9 Community Improvement Commission February 15, 2001",CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf CityCouncil,2017-12-05,24,"investigated. Mayor Spencer inquired whether online and the forms can indicate anonymous filing is allowable, to which the Police Chief responded said information is already included. Mayor Spencer requested staff to get the word out that anonymous reporting is allowed. The Police Chief noted third party complaints can also be filed. Mayor Spencer stated the data can be reviewed in the future. The City Manager noted data would be presented at an upcoming workshop. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (17-742) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination to the Planning Board. Not heard. (17-743) Stopwaste Topic Brief for November 2017. (Councilmember Oddie) Councilmember Oddie stated that he provided the monthly update to share the information. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:42 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 December 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-12-05.pdf CityCouncil,2019-04-02,24,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested Vice Mayor Knox White check-in the LWV and set-up a meeting. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he has met with the LWV. Councilmember Vella requested any meeting with the LWV be agendized so that Councilmembers who wish to attend may do so; requested a staff presentation related to paid signature gatherers and what other cities have implemented. Councilmember Oddie stated that he too would like LWV meetings agendized so that he may attend. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (19-209) David Bradford, Alameda, discussed how he has changed moving from the East End to the West End. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 15 April 2, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-04-02.pdf CityCouncil,2009-11-17,24,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY - -NOVEMBER 17, 2009 -7:31 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 12:27 a.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers / Commissioner deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. MINUTES (09-477 CC/09-52 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting held on November 3, 2009 and the Special CIC Meeting held on November 4, 2009. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes. Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM (09-478 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Municipal Code by Adding Subsection 30-17 (Density Bonus Regulations) to Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Allow Density Bonus Units and Incentives or Concessions to Developers that Voluntarily Provide for Affordable Housing Units as an Element of Their Residential Development Project. Amended and introduced: and (09-53 - CIC) Resolution No. 09-163, ""Amending Resolution No. 04- 127 to Reduce the Inclusionary Unit Requirement Policy for Residential Developments in the Business and Waterfront and West End Community Improvement Project Areas from at Least 25% to at Least 15%. "" Adopted. The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation. Councilmember/Commissioner Tam inquired whether reducing the inclusionary unit requirement from 25% to 15% would provide longer term affordable housing. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf CityCouncil,2010-09-07,24,"The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated some Commissioners want to know the financial aspects, which would be pretty far along in the study. Commissioner Tam inquired whether knowing how much the land would sell for would be important. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded what the land is worth versus relocation costs are two separate issues. *** Councilmember/Commissioner Tam left the dais at 11:47 p.m. and returned at 11:50 p.m. Commissioner deHaan stated a lot of loose ends exist; that he does not think the Commission is ready to go forward; costs could be calculated on the back of a napkin; the ENA does not have to be done immediately. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated concrete answers would not be known until the relocation study is done. Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the square footage of the Animal Shelter, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff would hire someone to answer said question. Commissioner Matarrese stated the idea of the ENA would be to sit down with Warmington Residential to see their valuations and what they can do to build houses in the area; the output would be a Development Agreement (DA); the DA would need to be compatible with uses, including the Packers Building, and would have to account for relocating two City operations; moved approval of directing the Interim Executive Director to come back with an updated ENA for the Commission to discuss, to define a timeframe in the ENA for the CIC and Warmington Residential that would point to the parallel work that has to be done exclusively, including existing operations around the Alaska Packers Building, and to look at other rules and benefits for the City, including a labor agreement, appropriate zoning, and all public hearings necessary to ensure that the public knows the intent and milestones in between. * (10-431 CC/10-68 CIC) Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing past 12:00 midnight. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. *** Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community 6 Improvement Commission September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,24,"12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary City Planning Department These minutes were approved at the June 27, 2005, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was audio and video taped. Planning Board Minutes Page 24 June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf CityCouncil,2010-03-16,24,"Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he understands Councilmember Matarrese's motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions: Councilmember Tam - 1. (10-127) Resolution No. 14432, ""Supporting the City's Response to Google Inc.'s Request for Information Regarding the Google Fiber for Communities Initiative and Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Designate a Single Point of Contact and to Establish a Google Streamlining Task Force for the Project.' Adopted. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation. Speakers: Howard Ashcraft, Wire Alameda; and Jim Meyer, Wire Alameda. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he is very impressed with the community coming forward regarding Google Wireless and the American Cup. On the call for the question the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (10-128) Consider Pursing the Establishment of a Task Group to Promote, Market and Support Businesses, Educational and Technology Resource Opportunities. Continued to April 6, 2010. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:43 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,24,"Absent: Mariani. Page 24 Planning Board Minutes March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf CityCouncil,2008-06-03,24,"The Finance Director stated budget increases would be needed otherwise. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Library Fund is paid out of the General Fund. The Finance Director responded approximately 50-55% of Library expenditures are supported by the General Fund, stated the Police Building Bond would have been paid off in 2015, if not refinanced. Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated the first year savings is approximately $600,000; inquired how much cash would not be spent the second year, to which the Finance Director responded $367,000. louncilmember/Authority Member Gilmore inquired how many more years the repayment would be pushed out, to which the Finance Director responded two years. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what are the fees. The Finance Director responded $150,000 for issuance; stated the underwriter's discount is $41,175. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the $41,175 is in addition to the $150,000, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor/Authority Member Tam stated fees would be rolled back into debt service. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated money would be borrowed to restructure borrowed money. Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired what was the interest on the 1996 Police Building, to which the Finance Director responded 4% to 6%. Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired what was the interest on the Golf Course, to which the Finance Director responded 3.9% to 5.75%. Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired what the new interest rate would be, to which the Finance Director responded the all in true interest costs is approximately 5%. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 10 Financing Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf CityCouncil,2014-07-15,24,"When the building was sold and the rents were raised to """"market value"" those two units were raised to $1600 while the other two units, one of them mine, were only raised to $1400. This seemed unfair to me, we all had the same rental descriptions when we moved in. My unit went up $350 theirs went up $475 One other (a studio) had to vacate due to pending construction. I cannot find anywhere else to live and will have to stay during a foundation replacement and feel it may be unsafe, but what are you going to do? This island is railroading existing tenants out with huge rent increases and pulling in the highest bidders. The two tenants who just left chose to leave the state and I am considering the same option. In the last 90 days I've only seen two decent units at the $1200 price point, I and many others applied, there just aren't any vacancies at a reasonable price. Who can afford a 30 to 60 percent housing price hike on short notice? Gotta love gentrification, I thought you should have a record of this situation here as part of your case file. Although my rent is reasonable, they are now renting these units for nearly $1,700-1,800. I cannot afford my place (barely), but I cannot move because I will lose this rate. Investigating nearby options, the price appears to have SKYROCKETED. I have a decent deal since I am sort of a ""On site manager"" but there's no way I could stay in the bay area if I lost this place. That said I still think I pay way too much given the blue collar job situation these days. It's an unfortunate fact that the housing market is predicated on the idea that ""The dumbest tool with more money than they can handle responsibly wins."". In a nutshell this means that whenever someone buys a home it's because they out bid a whole lot of much smarter people just because they could get more financing. That's bullshit and it creates homelessness meaning better people than them are living on the street. I think we need to lose the idea that property values and housing prices are one and the same. They aren't. The ""real"" in ""real estate"" means that property values remain stable over time. The Native Americans didn't believe in property ownership, therefore real estate was worth $0 to them. There's your ""property value"" right there. It's long overdue for housing prices to get back to reality. Overpaid yuppies are the problem and I don't allow them in my economy. We saw a 6 percent increase with no improvements to our unit just after the first year. We spent much of the year arguing to repair items that we noted were in need within our move in checklist, and the response that we received was largely that the property owner did not want to invest in the repairs, and that the unit was in high demand and we could leave if we wanted. We don't feel like valued renters, ""repairs"" are done in a patchwork manner if at all, and yet even still we have to watch as the rent continues to increase. We're worried about future planning as there are no standards, for all we know it could continue to increase by 6% annually, thus pricing us out of Alameda (where we own a small business and is important to us to stay). I think it's an outrageous increase. I have no storage, I pay all the utilities, I have no parking. The landlords do no gardening. It's all about money with no care for the people who actually live there. I've live in Alameda all my life, I'm 42, why should I move because money hungry slum lords think they need more money for a run-down piece of property? I have been living in my apartment for over 28 years. In January, the property was sold and I received a $350.00 rent increase. The new landlord will not repaint, fix or do anything to my apartment. My Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015 6 www.RenewedHopeHousing.or RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com I Laura Thomas (510)522-8901",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf CityCouncil,2007-07-17,24,"Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEMS None. ADJOURNMEN'T There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 4 July 17, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf CityCouncil,2009-02-03,24,"was in the red and in danger of folding the business is profitable and is almost a year ahead of projections. Commissioner deHaan stated the theatre developer was going to open a wine bar in the theatre and that has not happened; hours of operation would be limited. The Development Services Director stated the theatre developer discussed opening a wine bar at the same time; the lease does not require a wine bar be built upstairs. On the call for the questions, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 3. Noes: Commissioner deHaan - 1. Abstentions Commissioner Tam - 1. (ARRA) Recommendation to approve a Five Year Lease and Repayment Plan/Write-of: with AC Hornet Foundation. [Note: The minutes for this item are part of the ARRA record] (ARRA) Recommendation to approve an amendment to Consultant Contract with Harris & Associates for On-Call Services for Review of Land Development Entitlement Applications for Redevelopment of Alameda Point. Continued. ORAL REPORTS (ARRA) Oral Report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) - Highlights of January 8th Alameda Point RAB Meeting. [Note: The minutes for this item are part of the ARRA record] ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 1:22 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 4 and Community Improvement Commission February 3, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf CityCouncil,2008-08-19,24,"Board Member Matarrese stated the City needs to talk to its federal elected officials to find out why the City cannot get less acreage at no cost and receive money for cleanup. Chair Johnson inquired whether $100 million is enough to clean up the contamination. The Assistant City Manager responded the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes the amount is sufficient stated the Army would be liable for the waste. Board Member deHaan stated the [Fort Ord] Reuse Authority would be dissolved once the land is transferred. Chair Johnson stated cleanup would be privatized; working with the Army is different than working with the Navy. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 7 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 19, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf CityCouncil,2020-07-07,24,"ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission 2 July 7, 2019",CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf CityCouncil,2022-04-05,24,"COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (22-233) Councilmember Daysog discussed his attendance at the 2022 all-City concert at Encinal High School. (22-234) Councilmember Knox White made an announcement regarding ACTC meetings and workshops; discussed an upcoming ILC meeting; expressed his appreciation for the City Manager. (22-235) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed her attendance at the Afghan Resource Fair held at Alameda Point and the Navy League Crab Feed; announced her participation as a judge for the Boy Scouts Pinewood Derby; discussed the five year anniversary event for Feathered Outlaw and her attendance at a webinar for Project Opiod; stated that she attended a Bay East Real Estate Summit; expressed support for the City Clerk presenting information on NextRequest at a League of Women Voters event; expressed her appreciation for the City Manager. (22-236) Vice Mayor Vella discussed her attendance at the Lead Abatement Board meeting; expressed her appreciation for the City Manager. (22-237) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support and bid an early farewell to the City Manager; discussed the early stages of the pandemic; announced an event put on by the East Bay Economic Development Alliance promoting the Resilient East Bay launch; discussed an event honoring Chris Tam; announced a memorial ceremony at the USS Hornet recognizing the 80th anniversary of the Bataan Death March; discussed the Ukraine conflict and opportunities for support. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council April 5, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-07-11,24,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday July 11, 2018 6:30 p.m. pretty important, and it might be something that we can get an overview for the next meeting and maybe see if the City Council also wants to endorse it, as are city councils like in San Francisco and Oakland are going to endorse, and in other places in California. Arnold Brillinger: So, what I'll do is I'll send the information on what that bill is to Laurie and she can send it out to everybody, so that if you're interested you can see how it's working. And also, maybe then we can discuss endorsing it to our City Council to say, ""Yes, we want to sponsor this also."" Chair Beth Kenny: Yes, get that to Laurie and we can have it on the agenda for next time if we can all review that and we will have a discussion about that. That would be great. I'd love to hear about things that are coming down the pipeline. Arnold Brillinger: Yes. Chair Beth Kenny: Great. Commissioner Roloff? Jennifer Rolloff: So, let's see for School Board. I didn't get a chance to attend the meeting where they talked extensively about the merging of schools, but I will do some investigating on that. I think that puts a lot of the population that we're advocating for at risk. A lot of these services are going to fall through the cracks, so I'll follow up on that. But what I did want to talk about was, there was a committee put together that did a needs assessment for mental and emotional wellness needs. So Kirsten Zazo, do you know Kirsten? She's the Chief Student Support Officer in Alameda [Unified School District], and she presented the needs to the Board. The purpose of the needs assessment is to identify student behavioral needs, inventory existing school and community-based services and identify gaps in services. Jennifer Rolloff: The goal is to develop recommendations, create a more coordinated and integrated behavioral health service system and make services more accessible to all students. Which I felt was very thematic with what our board is doing, with what Commission is doing with focusing on mental health needs. Essentially just to net out, she presented the findings but I think one of the takeaways was per Sean McPhetridge [Superintendent at AUSD]. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of money to address these. We can work on addressing the zero-cost solutions that they had. So one of the thoughts I had was that Kirsten or a delegate could possibly come and present her report to us. We could do a little Q&A and see how possibly us, on behalf of the City could make recommendations for supplementing some of those gaps that don't have proper funding since it is for Alameda residents as well. So if maybe we could get that on an agenda for a future date. I could even contact Kirsten. Chair Beth Kenny: Yes, if you could contact Kirsten and include Laurie and myself on the email, that would be great. And so I would love to have her on the agenda to present that report. Jennifer Rolloff: Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. That's all I have for today. Chair Beth Kenny: Vice-Chair Barrett. 09/12/18 Page 24 of 29",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-07-11.pdf CityCouncil,2019-12-18,24,"City Council Workshop Workshop Report Management Partners Understand and respect the city council/city manager plan of governance: It is critical for you to understand why your city is organized under this plan of governance and how it should operate. It is important to understand and appreciate- ate the distinction between policymaking and implementation and the different roles played by individual councilmembers, the city council as a whole, the city manager and the city staff. Allow time for you and the city manager to get to know each other and develop a working relationship: Try not to overly rely on what you have heard from others regarding what it will be like to work with the manager-others views may or may not be accurate. Most city managers understand the need to work very hard to adjust to the issues, concerns and priorities of the new city council. Try to be open-minded to your ability to establish a productive and effective working relationship with the manager. City managers will do their best to carry out the policy direction of the city council (even when there is a major change in policy direction): Professional city managers are committed to carry out the policy direction of the city council regardless if they personally agree or disagree with the policy as long as what they are asked to implement is: - Legal. - Ethical. - Within their/the city's authority. It is often misunderstood that when a city manager effectively implements a city council's policy, the manager personally agrees with the policy or can only implement city services consistent with that policy. City managers can change the organization's approach to an issue as may be directed by a new city council. Avoid overly associating the city manager with the policies that the city has previously implemented at the direction of the previous council. Take your role seriously, but not yourself: This common advice is particularly important for mayors and councilmembers. While you are doing important and serious work on behalf of the community, you will do it better and more effectively if you keep the normal ""ups and downs"" and ""wins and losses"" in perspective. You were elected to make tough decisions on - 4 18",CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-03-01,24,"Expressed support of jobs, not condos; urged council to consider Vice Mayor Matarrese's referral: Amy Rose, Alameda. Expressed support of the Alameda Marina; stated that he has experienced excellent service from Svendsen's Marine; he recognizes the value of Alameda's unique waterfront asset and opposes condominium development: Peter Butler, Alameda. Stated it is important the waterfront continues its tradition of providing a reference point for the maritime industry: Dwight Durant, Club Nautique. Urged Council to maintain Alameda's maritime infrastructure: Irma Marin-Nolan, Alameda. Stated the Marina is an underutilized asset; urged Council to support the referral: Andy McKee, Alameda. Stated that he is concerned about the loss of the shoreline access and historic use; light industrial jobs cannot be replaced by retail jobs: David Herrigel, Alameda. Expressed support of maintaining the Alameda Marina and boating community; provided a brief history of the marina: Tom Charron, Alameda. Showed a map; urged Council to preserve Alameda Marina which is valuable piece of property: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda. Stated that she teaches women and blind women sailboating; expressed support of preserving the marina: Dawn Chesney, Alameda. The Interim City Manager stated the Council and staff will be taking a tour of the waterfront on March 11th from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; the referral gives the opportunity for Council to direct staff; a report would come back in April to discuss the tour and ask for direction from Council regarding Alameda Marina and the MX Zoning. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated his intent is to frame the discussion; the zoning details and guidance have flexibility built in; he would like to define the zoning goals, particularly in the northern waterfront and existing commercial activity that can be grown; he would like to include other MX zoning that may happen which is not in place now. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated nothing is simple but Council always strives to achieve balance; preserving the maritime business is first and foremost; existing maritime businesses could help bring other businesses to Alameda; there is a cost to renovating infrastructure; some funding comes from developers, which means the possibility of smart mixed-use; she would like to ensure preservation of the maritime industry, but would also like to review the need for infrastructure improvements and housing; a carefully planned improvement could create a vibrant, functioning, well- Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf CityCouncil,2008-02-19,24,"The Finance Director stated the fourth quarter may be something entirely different. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 12 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission February 19, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-16,24,"lost if the program move forward. The Community Development Director stated the rent range is $2,800 to $3,800 per month; the units are currently priced somewhat below-market; stated staff may have concerns about further rent reductions. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated roughly $80,000 annually should be higher for three units priced at $3,800; inquired the last rent for the units. The Community Development Director responded that she does not have the figures, but can provide the information; stated two of the units have not been rented for some time. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City has any other possible properties across the Island and whether the City can decide to put the same type of housing in another vacant property. The Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated that she is not aware of another option; it is rare for the City to have City-owned homes; there was not an intention to cluster the opportunities on the West End. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City has homes anywhere other than Alameda Point, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the negative. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the idea of a housing trust is something that would allow the City to buy up a foreclosed property or a property for sale at a good rate anywhere within the City. Councilmember Knox White stated that his son has been hired at BACS; it has been determined that there are no financial recusal required for his participation in the matter; he is excited to support the program; expressed concern about the outreach not being completed ahead of time; Council is pushing staff to move forward as fast as possible to address homelessness; sometimes the ball gets dropped; the process was not done right; the City can move forward and work on good neighbor agreements; he continues to be supportive of the matter moving forward; there have been a number of conversations about things happening and being concentrated on the West End; Council has given direction to staff to start looking more proactively at sites and how to find potential sites; Council is aware that a lot of available space that provide opportunities to move quickly are at Alameda Point; ARPA money also provides opportunity; matters are landing heavily at Alameda Point; Council directed staff to find ways to help move projects east. Councilmember Daysog stated the focus should remain on the agreement; under the services portion of the agreement, the site management section requires the provider to immediately notify the City of any complaints received from the business community Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2021 13",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2019-03-13,24,"ITEM 3-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, March 13, 2019, 6:30 PM Leslie Morrison: So other boards I've sat on, you have several people who have been nominated. Liz Acord: I apologize that I'm unfamiliar with the protocol at this point. Leslie Morrison: It's alright. Think you have two nominations. You have Arnold and you have me. And then I think you call for a vote, and you could do a written vote if you want, or since you have two people who are running, we could also take an oral vote or a hand vote, if you want. Jenn Barrett: Okay. Thank you for your help with that. I'm sorry, I'm not as familiar with these as I should be. So I apologize for that. So we have two nominations. We have Commissioner Brillinger and we have Commissioner Morrison. I think that the best way to do this is by a hand vote. So can we have everyone who would like to vote for Commissioner Morrison to raise their hand please? And all those in favor to vote for Commissioner Brillinger? Okay, so the vote is four to two for Commissioner Morrison to become our new Vice Chair of the Commission. 5-D Confirmation of New Subcommittee Assignments (All Commissioners) Jenn Barrett: Okay. We're going to go on to item 5D, which is the confirmation of new sub- committee assignments. I know that Beth was taking notes on this. I'm sorry, I'm just looking up on my email that she sent me today. She said that our sub-committee assignments have relatively stayed the same as last year. I don't have the list that she created, but it's something that we can just add to the agenda for next time to make sure that everyone is clear on what sub-committee they have been assigned to, and which board liaisons we would like them to report to. Leslie Morrison: That would be great. Jenn Barrett: Okay, great. Leslie Morrison: We're at end of the meeting and I'm not clear on what I was assigned. Jenn Barrett: Right, we were very rushed at the end, and so I want to make sure that that goes on to our agenda for next time. The only item that she has in her notes is that Leslie was going to do City Council.If Jenny no longer wishes to, otherwise Leslie was going to do SSHRB? Obviously, Jenny is not present right now, but those were the only two sub-committee changes. Does anyone have any comments or questions on their sub-committees, other than the fact that we're going to talk about it next meeting? No? Okay. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Jenn Barrett: Staff communications? Liz Acord: Just very briefly wanted to thank you all for bearing with the last minute staffing change. Unfortunately, this afternoon, Laurie was no longer able to attend this evening. And so here I am helping, or hindering, depending on how you look at it. So I appreciate your patience with that, and Laurie will be back next time. 03/13/19 Page 24 of 28",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2019-03-13.pdf OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-04-05,24,"the issue is the legislative agenda appears to be a general roadmap; the question is how would someone know; it is not common practice to add a specific bill to the legislative agenda; that has not been done before in Alameda and to her understanding it is not common practice in neighboring cities; it falls out of the scope of the regular process. In response to Commissioner Reid's inquiry, Chair Tilos stated there is already a motion on the floor. Commissioner Chen provided an example of the process to get a resolution passed; stated anyone can present something to the Council, whether it is controversial or not; if the Council decides to put it on the agenda, when the agenda is published, the public has a chance to see it and has the opportunity to pull it for discussion; when that happens, typically, people will come out who might be against it; if the Council still wants to support it, they can vote on it; everybody gets a fair chance; she does not think the public had a fair chance in this instance; if the Council wanted to put bills on the Consent Calendar, name them and give the public a chance to see that and pay attention; if someone was watching the meeting they would not be able to do research fast enough to figure what was going on; it is important to give the public a fair chance. Commissioner LoPilato stated that she agrees with Commissioner Reid regarding transparency and with Commissioner Chen regarding everyone getting a fair chance; there probably are improvements that could happen to the process; she thinks the Commission could find a vehicle to potentially provide recommendations; in the context of the current complaint, there was no violation of the Sunshine Ordinance. Commissioner LoPilato seconded the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Commissioners Chen: No; LoPilato: Aye; Reid: No; Shabazz: Aye; Chair Tilos: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. 3-D. Discuss and Provide Recommendations Concerning Potential Amendments to Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter Il (Administration) of the Alameda Municipal Code, as Amended, to Replace ""Null and Void"" Remedy. Not heard. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Shabazz stated the meetings have been going long; suggested Chair Tilos work with staff to prioritize and set the agenda. Chair Tilos responded he thinks the amount of complaints received in the last few months is what is throwing the meetings off; inquired whether there are any complaints on the table, to which the City Clerk responded there are none at this point. Chair Tilos stated that he is keeping his fingers crossed and hopes to be able to get to Item 3D on the next agenda; the complaints are what controls the agenda right now. Meeting of the Open Government Commission April 5, 2021 24",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-10,24,"issues; stated the differences are down to 10%, which can be negotiated: Karen Bey, Alameda. Suggested the Council give direction on Clement Avenue; stated the segment of the Cross Alameda Trail is substandard; the City needs to be the broker to get a working boatyard: Brian McGuire, Bike Walk Alameda. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether things not included in the document being approved tonight are not going to happen and things included can happen, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated the clarifying amendments addressed some of his concerns; he needs to clearly understand what is included to approve the matter tonight; having the Request for Proposals (RFP) come back to Council for an update is a little squishy; since the document does not have milestone, he wants to make sure there is a real effort to exhaust every possibility to get a boatyard, rather than leave it to chance; disincentives should be stripped out; the concierge service ships are a disincentive; the Master Plan can be amended if said service is the only alternative; the 50% homeownership/50% rental is a soft target; he wants any change to require Council action; the City should ensure there will be a boatyard in exchange for allowing only 15% of the project base to be affordable housing; the maritime business should be embedded in the Plan; expressed concern over future market driven opportunities being in the same zone as maritime parking; stated that he would like to see future market driven opportunities removed; an amendment can be made, if needed; he would like the ambiguities removed since the Plan is a governing document. The Assistant Community Development Director stated regarding the boatyard, the Master Plan says a permit will not be issued until the Request for Qualifications (RFQ)/RFP process is completed; the RFQ will be six months; having no one interested in running a boatyard on the site would be a major problem; after interested, qualified businesses are found, the RFP process will follow; the selected business will help design the final boatyard and infrastructure; in the last week, a suggestion was made that there be a public check in regarding the RFQ/RFP process; the construction process cannot begin until the RFQ/RFP process is complete; regarding the concern over future market driven opportunities, stated the idea is not to get rid of parking; there is so much demand for commercial, the project would go to structured parking; the parking for maritime cannot be eliminated; there would be structured parking with commercial on top. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether language can be added to say that, to which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated page 48 lists artist studios under the maritime commercial district, which he thinks is a bad idea; the businesses should be maritime. The Assistant Community Development Director stated the maritime district straddles Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 16 July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf OpenGovernmentCommission,2015-02-02,24,"The City Clerk stated by majority [Council] vote. Vice Chair Foreman stated his compromise would be to leave in the first part and leave out the last part; the particular sentence is not sunshine and has to do with when you can and cannot remove a member from a body. The City Clerk stated the Section was added to inform a member of a body; since sunshine is about providing information, the Attorney's idea is to put more information out there and inform them if they have not read the other provisions that they could be taken off because they might not be aware. Vice Chair Foreman stated inform them in the right section of the law; inquired why it would it be here. The City Clerk responded every board and commission member is required to read the ordinance; they are not required to read the other sections of the law; they are all annually required to read it. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he would redraft and bring back some language that might be more acceptable to the Commission. Commissioner Dieter stated out of all of the Sections, this is the one that is being tabled all together; there is a problem with it. The Assistant City Attorney stated Section 9 the first sentence under 2-92.2 has been moved to the front of the ordinance; in October, the Commission talked about the fact that sometimes the 10 day rule could not always be met and that there are circumstances when additional time is needed; he pulled the language out of the Public Records Act and put it into Subsection C to allow additional time for the custodian of records to respond as long as they gave the reasons for the extensions and the date on which the determination was supposed to be provided. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether there was a typo with the part that was added in Section D should it say employee ""or"" elected official rather than ""of,"" to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. The Assistant City Attorney stated the new Subsection G has been moved up from a different Section; Section 10 on Responsibilities of the Mayor, has been moved to a different section in the front; Section 11 explains what is going to be available on the City's website for a certain period of time and what would be on essentially forever. Commissioner Dieter stated she had a hard time understanding the additions to Section 2-92.4: documents must be posted on the City's website, but these particular documents may be removed. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 24",OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2016-11-01,24,"Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there will be discussion on workforce or moderate income housing and work live housing; stated the reality is people cannot afford the lowest unit at Alameda Landing; inquired what is the City going to do for people making workforce housing wage; 33% of the AMI is $3,000; the issue is critical; the City needs to provide housing options for all levels of affordability, not just the higher end. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is confused about order of the issues. Mayor Spencer stated Council is addressing the referrals in the order they were submitted. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated inclusionary housing should be addressed at a priority setting work session; inquired whether that is what the City Manager had in mind. The City Manager responded inclusionary housing will have its own meeting. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like Council to direct staff to set the priority setting work session and the first item the Council would tackle would be the considered most significant. Mayor Spencer stated the priority setting workshop is separate; right now, Council needs to give direction on the referrals; stated that she would like to discuss the work/live, whether or not to count the units as dwellings and look at the work/live ordinance. Councilmember Daysog stated the issue with inclusionary housing is that Alameda Point needs to bring to life a revamped inclusionary housing policy; the City has to have a discussion about a local housing bond to supplement money; how the City sells land at Alameda Point can influence the affordable housing set asides; Council should contemplate a local housing bond. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated said points can be included in the discussion; the referral is to direct staff to look at changing the inclusionary ordinance and come back to Council with a report. The City Manager responded the referral states to start the process with the Planning Board; she prefers to start with the Council discussion to obtain policy direction. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he agrees with the City Manager's direction. Mayor Spencer inquired whether she needs to do a separate referral if she would like to discuss work/live housing. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated work/live housing is a component of affordable housing. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf CityCouncil,2015-10-20,24,"(15-629) Recommendation to Proceed with a New Development Strategy for the Enterprise District (Formerly Site B) at Alameda Point. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor Spencer left the dais at 11:03 p.m. and returned at 11:05 p.m. Councilmember Daysog stated end users should pay their share of infrastructure costs; the overall infrastructure cost for Alameda Point is $566 million; Phase One which, at the time, included Site A and Site B, was estimated to cost $183 million predicated on land use and intensity of uses; now the City is not sure of the land use; inquired how the City is ensuring the end user will pay their fair share of infrastructure costs for Site B. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the infrastructure burden is approximately $1 million an acre; stated it is codified in ordinances that any development which occurs in the district would have to pay a development impact fee equivalent to $1 million per acre; the City hopes to get land value in addition; the benefit of being a public owner is that the value of the land can be lowered to the value of the infrastructure; policy decisions can be made on a case by case basis. Councilmember Daysog stated infrastructure costs are important because one of the selling features for Alameda Point is that there will be a sports complex and a regional water ferry; sacrifices on the land sale would be worth it because would have amenities; inquired how cherry picking can be avoided at Site B; people will pick the sites closest to the water. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the City is not marketing waterfront land; the City wants to benefit from land being developed; staff anticipates starting closer to Main Street; ultimately the Council decides whether or not a deal is good. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he likes the approach but would like a development agreement with a formalized description of the responsibilities of the City and the contractor Cushman and Wakefield; goals stated the costs should include: jobs, catalyst occupant and end user occupant; he would like 6 month reporting to measure progress against the goals; would like to see what lease revenues are available for installing the water main; having the costs codified is helpful, but he would still like it mentioned in the plan and formalized in a development agreement. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff could include the costs in the documents. Vice Mayor Matarrese responded that he would like the Plan to be approved by Council, which allows Council to measure, adjust, terminate or expand it. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf CityCouncil,2009-01-06,24,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 6 , 2009- - - -7:31 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:08 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None MINUTES (09-02) - Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and CIC Meetings held on December 16, 2008. Approved. Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEM ( 09-03) Recommendation to maintain the current façade of the northern elevation of the Civic Center parking garage and re- allocate funds to other redevelopment priorities, including improvement of the appearance of the Bill Chun Service Station. The Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation. Commissioner deHaan inquired how much of the planting area is within the City's jurisdiction. The Redevelopment Manager responded the entire area; stated the area is narrow; trees are not a viable option; the City would need to acquire some of Long's property to plant trees; Long's uses the area for delivery. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether drainage is an issue, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the negative. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Redevelopment Manager reviewed the letter from Jennifer Bowles. The Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated Ms. Bowles expressed concerns regarding bamboo; the Architect noted a number of examples where bamboo has worked in the Bay Area. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 1 January 6, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,24,"8-D. ZA05-0003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment/City-wide (JC/JA) Phase II of proposed revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance with respect to building height limits and number of stories; exceptions to minimum side yard requirements for additions to existing residences, provide a definition for ""replacement- in-kind"", off-street parking regulations and simplifying reconstruction of non-conforming residential structures. M/S Cook/Mariani and unanimous to continue Item 8-D to the Planning Board meeting of March 14, 2005. AYES - 6 (Piziali absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 24 February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-30,24,"Plan is adopt as-is; there is room for more discussion when the matter returns for a revised policy recommendation. The City Manager stated that he concurs with the Planning, Building and Transportation Director's recommendation. Councilmember Daysog stated a lot of the issues regarding intensity of uses are still tied to the Housing Element discussion; he is not supportive of the General Plan. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the intensity of uses proposed in the land use classification are specifically tied to existing zoning intensities; staff did not want to jump the gun on the Housing Element; the Planning Board set the land uses intensities to existing zoning; there are no proposed increases in intensities for the General Plan. Councilmember Daysog stated the South Shore housing has prospects of 800 units; the actual amount could increase to 1,200 units; the amount is part of the General Plan discussion; he does not see himself supporting the General Plan; the matter is related to the impacts and EIR; the housing amount will affect the impacts; everything must work together. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she thinks staff has explained that matters are related to zoning; she is supportive of the General Plan and the recommendations provided by Councilmember Knox White; proposed changes should be included in an updated appendix. Vice Mayor Vella moved adoption of resolution. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the motion includes giving staff direction to consider including comments made by Councilmember Herrera Spencer. Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative. On the call for the question the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 10:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 30, 2021 24",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf CityCouncil,2018-06-05,24,"The Public Works Director responded the infrastructure bond ordinance requires two readings; stated approval would be needed July 10th with a second reading on July 24th to make the deadline. Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff can come up with the specific language, do community engagement, and be ready for a first reading on July 10th. further inquired whether staff would do all of the community engagement between now and July 10th. The Public Works Director responded the community engagement has already occurred. Councilmember Oddie stated that he disagrees. The Acting City Manager stated more work needs to be done on the General Obligation (GO) bond; staff's preference is to do the sales tax measure which has less lead time; a lot more work needs to be done on the GO bond; staff wants to do more outreach; the matter was before Council in February; a lot of work has been done, but Council wants staff to do more; staff is suggesting going with the sales tax measure and doing the GO bond in the future. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would disagree with the Acting City Manager; her preference would be to go forward with the infrastructure bond; the City's infrastructure is deteriorating; repair costs increase the longer maintenance is deferred; the City is leaving itself vulnerable to a Houston situation; polling was done and it did quite well; the polling should determine the right amount; concurred with Mr. Bangert about Alameda Point potable water; questioned whether the sales tax increase can wait until a future election; the decision is not easy; expressed concern over putting off infrastructure. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to pursue the infrastructure bond taking into account the comments on removing the word ""pothole"" and ""other"" to make it specific to the list presented. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is not prepared to support the infrastructure bond right now; adding and removing things changes the analysis; the City does not know what people are supporting; issues remain with including items, such as potholes, and actually having the funds to do the repairs; more outreach needs to be done; the fiscal neutrality issue needs to be raised with the voters; the measure needs to be fully transparent; the City needs to be clear. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is suggesting cleaning up the proposed ballot language and use what the Public Works Director presented tonight, which did not include Alameda Point water system. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf CityCouncil,2007-06-19,24,"needed; the City has an obligation to other arts and cultural groups also; the City did not pay rent for the months that the Museum was closed due to a flood; suggested that the City apply the rent savings to the budget cut for the year going forward. Councilmember deHaan stated that the Museum was not operational during the flood situation and did not receive funding all departments were making cuts in Fiscal Year 2004-2005; the 10% cut is not relevant at this time; the Museum and community arts bring a value to the City but have two different missions; he finds it bizarre to get caught up in a $50,000 line item; the Cultural Arts have needs like everyone else; $4,600 is not going to make or break the City; the City needs to work with all entities. Mayor Johnson stated the Alameda Civic Light Opera (ACLO) has not requested assistance in the past; the Public Arts Fund is an annual accumulation. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City has never allocated any money from the Public Arts Fund; the Fund has been growing for the past four years; a number of development activities will contribute to the Fund. Blake Brydon, ACLO Vice President, stated ACLO supports the Alameda Museum; all arts organizations need to work together he likes the idea of having money for the Museum and having a separate line item for the Cultural Arts; every arts organization should be able to apply for a grant every year; equity is needed between organizations; ACLO is constantly fundraising equity is needed among the various organizations; approximately $80,000 is raised through fundraising events and another $40,000 is received from general donations. Mayor Johnson inquired how many hours volunteers contribute. Teddy Tabor, ACLO, responded that she would not be able to count the number of hours; stated ACLO has a paid Director this year; solicitation efforts are necessary. Councilmember Gilmore stated solicitations raise community awareness. Councilmember deHaan stated the Kaufman Auditorium was one day away from a wrecking ball and would have been a major loss; urged the Museum to look to corporate donors; $50,000 could be allocated to the Museum and another line item could be established for Cultural Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 13 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 19, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf CityCouncil,2021-01-05,24,"due to COVID-19; discussed high levels of lead in bulk spices; stated there is concern about lead levels in home based daycare facilities; announced she attended a meeting for Stopwaste; stated legislation implementation around compost and recyclables is delayed; discussed an award received by Alameda Grocer. (21-022) Councilmember Spencer announced an upcoming blood drive at Temple Israel. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 January 5, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2017-05-16,24,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY-MAY - 16, 2017- -5:00 P.M. Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:00 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 5. Absent: None. Public Comment The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (17-302) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8); Property: Chuck Corica Golf Complex, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda, CA 94502; City Negotiator: Jill Keimach, City Manager and Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director; Organizations Represented: Greenway Golf Associates, Inc. Issue Under Negotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Term of Payment (17-303) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the Government code Number of Cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action). (17-304) Public Employee Performance Evaluation Pursuant to Government Code § 54957 Positions Evaluated: City Manager - Jill Keimach, City Attorney - Janet Kern and City Clerk - Lara Weisiger Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer announced that regarding Real Property, discussion was deferred to allow staff to obtain additional information and direction was given to staff; regarding Anticipated Litigation and Performance Evaluation, direction was given to staff. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 16, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf CityCouncil,2006-10-17,24,"Transportation Element in the General Plan. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the intent would be not to amend the policies as part of the EIR process until the analysis is completed. The Public Works Director responded staff's opinion is that the General Plan amendment would need to be initiated in order to use the policies the associated analysis, with the General Plan amendment, is not expected to be complete until September of next year. Councilmember Matarrese inquired which guideline is in conflict with the General Plan. The Public Works Director responded the existing General Plan states that the level of service for intersections should be Level D; mitigation needs to be provided when a traffic analysis is run in an EIR and a level of service F is noted at an intersection; stated mitigation is done by adding lanes. Councilmember Matarrese stated another mitigation could be found other than adding lanes; he was referring to a conflict with the General Plan; the General Plan states that mitigation is necessary when a certain level of service is hit; widening roadways is only one way to mitigate the service. The Public Works Director stated the General Plan is only tied to level of service at intersections, which is measured by delay; the General Plan is very motor vehicle focused and all the policies tend to be motor vehicle focused; TDM is encouraged but there is no detailed information on deductions for TDM. Councilmember Matarrese stated the policies do not conflict with the General Plan; the General Plan requires a level of service. The Pubic Works Director stated that the General Plan also includes Capital Improvement Projects that add lanes. Mayor Johnson stated the Capital Improvement Projects do not need to be done; inquired whether the General Plan states that the only way to mitigate traffic is by adding lanes. The Pubic Works Director responded the General Plan states that the policy is Level D for intersections. Mayor Johnson stated there are countless ways to mitigate the problem; inquired whether practice is limited to mitigating Level D Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 October 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf CityCouncil,2005-06-07,24,"Department funds cannot cross pollinate into other activities; the overhead and staffing in the CIC budget is a little over 10%; there are very few bodies managing CIC projects Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funded staff cannot be moved to CIC projects because it is not eligible for them under the grant dollars; there is flexibility within ARRA and CIC staff; only four people are funded through lease revenues; one person will be eliminated; the Development Services Department will continue to morph throughout the year; almost all of the cash flows have been completed, which will provide a good picture of all obligations, pass-throughs, contractual arrangements, etc. Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated there is a greater control over the operating costs for staff; the City will need to keep a close eye on projects. The Development Services Director stated there is not a lot of cushion built in for all of the capital projects. Commissioner Daysog stated that the $2 million earmarked for the Library might not go for the Library because the money might be needed for the redevelopment projects. The Development Services Director stated the cycle is very common; when large construction projects are started there is a slip period of 18 months to three years before the projects hit the tax rolls. Commissioner Daysog stated that it is important to be very cautious with the large budget projects; the Alameda Power & Telecom cable television project was estimated at $16 million and cost $29 million. The Development Services Director stated that construction costs continue to escalate. Commissioner Daysog thanked the Development Services Director for the leadership shown. Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the budget is fragile at the best; any Alameda Point glitches would be a major concern; noted he has deep concerns for the future years; stated that he would like to see budgeting for the retail recruiter position in the future. The Development Services Director stated that a retail recruiter has been funded for one year. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 9 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf CityCouncil,2020-03-03,24,"The City Manager stated some of the scenarios to be brought forth from the consultant are recession as well as unfunded liabilities up to 7% to see impacts of both. Councilmember Daysog stated that he appreciates looking at the Other Post- Employment Benefits (OPEB) liabilities; the cumulative amount set aside as a result of the policy is astounding; noted that he understands the need to pay down unfunded liabilities; stated that there are other service needs that current residents are demanding; it is imperative to review the OPEB policy currently in place; the numbers presented on Slide 15 show a negative balance of $3 million; outlined Slide 15 figures; expressed concern over stocking away reserve money; stated that he believes many reserves are phantom reserves due, in part, to not having fully staffed departments; the reserve is a function of not fully staffed departments. Councilmember Vella stated there are baby changing stations coming into parks, which is a big expenditure; inquired which bargaining unit the Building Inspector Compaction position is in, to which the Human Resources Director responded Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA). In response to Councilmember Vella's inquiry, the Human Resources Director stated staff previously worked on adding classifications to the unit and missed that the true 5% had not been completed between classifications; it is an internal compaction issue needing to be fixed and allowing people to promote. Councilmember Vella inquired whether the position is currently vacant, to which the Human Resources Director responded the position is currently filled. In response to Councilmember Vella's inquiry, the Human Resources Director stated the adjustment has been made within the last year. Councilmember Vella inquired what work was included in the Finance Department wear and tear cost of $175,000; stated the space also included other office space; inquired whether the cost includes the City Attorney's office. The City Manager responded there is a variety of things to look at within City Hall; stated a space planner is needed first; then, key improvements will be decided; the use of the money has changed, but the amount is still to be used for improvements within City Hall. Councilmember Vella inquired whether the amount will be used solely toward the Finance Department. The City Manager responded the amount could be used for other departments; stated the funding may have to be increased in the mid-cycle. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 3, 2020 21",CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-19,24,"The Assistant Community Development Director responded there are smaller businesses outside of Alameda Point; stated 25 employees is a reach for many tenants. Councilmember Oddie stated the 25 employee threshold could be just for rent forgiveness or conversion; expressed support for assisting as many tenants as possible. The Assistant Community Development Director stated not many landlords are offering rent abatement; the City is setting the pace by providing abatement; requested clarification on the threshold for allowing rent abatement. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City should not do something just because it can; Council should be prudent in helping people through difficult times and should be judicious with the criteria of who qualifies for rent abatement; expressed support for long deferral programs and allowing payments to be paid at the back-end of the lease; stated the criteria needs to be applied in a way that keeps areas viable; expressed support for a program which relies heavily on deferral; stated the time can be lengthened; abatement should only be allowed under specialized circumstances. Vice Mayor Knox White expressed support for rent abatement; stated Council needs to show leadership and encourage others to do so; inquired whether the 90-day deferral and the 90-day loan conversion becomes a six month loan conversion program; whether tenants still have to pay the 90-day deferral. The Assistant Community Development Director responded everything is mixed in together; stated after six months, the tenant has proven that they have overcome and met some of the set benchmarks; staff will offer a 50% abatement and the tenant will be subject to the original deferral program. The City Manager stated the original three months will be combined with an additional three months; should a tenant not abate for three months, another month could be added at some point; noted all six months could be wrapped into a loan. The Assistant Community Development Director expressed support for the length of the program being based on the length of time the building was unusable, plus one month; for having either three months or $300,000 being the cap, allowing Council to designate whichever is greater or lower; stated the options allow guidelines for administering the program. Vice Mayor Knox White expressed concern about the $300,000 cap; stated the cap will be reached at 2 to 3 companies; expressed concern about approving the first seven businesses that apply, hitting the cap and needing to request more funding. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether or not staff will be contemplating tenants on a first come first served basis; expressed support for an application period and process with scoring criteria. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 15 May 19, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-19.pdf CityCouncil,2019-09-03,24,"Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Daysog - 1. (19-487) Recommendation to Approve Adding a Prosecution Unit to the City Attorney's Office and to Provide for Facilities Upgrades to Accommodate New Staffing; (19-487A) Resolution No. 15584, ""Approving Workforce Changes in the City Attorney's Office to Add Two Positions: Assistant City Attorney and Paralegal, and Upgrade an Administrative Services Coordinator Position to Management Analyst."" Adopted; (19-487B) Resolution No. 15585, ""Amending the Fiscal Year 2019-20 General Fund Operating Budget by Increasing City Attorney's Office Appropriations by $172,000.' Adopted; and (19-487C) Authorize the City Attorney to Enter into Any Agreements Necessary with the Alameda County Superior Court and Alameda County District Attorney's Office to Effectuate the Implementation of the Program; and Provide Direction on Whether the City Attorney's Office Should Work with the Charter Revision Subcommittee on a Potential Charter Amendment Authorizing Prosecution of State Law Misdemeanors. The City Attorney gave a brief presentation. Expressed concern over the funding; discussed other more important, critical things that could be funded: Alan Teague, Alameda. Councilmember Vella stated laws without enforcement are meaningless; the item helps the City enforce laws to the full extent, including some that go toward Climate Action goals; many things resulting from State law have been impacting the City Attorney's office; the item will allow growth and enforcement of laws in working with the District Attorney's office; the City Attorney has had experience with enforcement; expressed support for the proposal. Councilmember Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the resolutions]. Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, with a friendly amendment to include direction to have the Charter Review Subcommittee review Charter language for consideration. Councilmember Vella accepted amendment to the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated the item is the most important thing Council will consider due to the enforcement element; Council has to be responsive to constituents; requested consideration be made for the staff member reviewing sensitive materials to have an office with walls instead of a cubicle. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 3, 2019 22",CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf CityCouncil,2021-04-20,24,"The City Manager responded the model will be used for scenarios; stated the model helps staff understand where the City is at today, where it will be moving and which factors affect positives and downsides; the model has shown, in the immediate term, the General Fund's susceptibility is not the General Fund itself, but more funds adding pressure due to needing support over time; pensions overall are a huge issue; the model shows pensions as a pinch point to continue monitoring through pension management. Mr. Morris stated long-term financial decisions will be helped by the model; the aggregation of the General Fund with a Special Revenue Fund helps provide the big picture; when a baseline forecast is complete at the end of the fiscal year, there will be more refinement; the model can then be used to show the various financial benefits and risks, Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) and pension liabilities. Julio Morales, Urban Futures Inc., stated it is not always the General Fund; Special Revenue Funds are also a focus; pensions are a problem for everyone; staff can only help Council when the issue is recognized and ready to be addressed. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether assumptions used to come up with the numbers can be specified. Mr. Morris responded that he can provide the information; stated the assumptions are the drivers that go into the forecasting algorithms; he relies on Moody's Analytics to provide economic data; he is not an economist; Moody's Analytics goes down to the metropolitan statistical area level in creating economic forecast data for the long-term, which is beneficial due regions of California varying; the algorithms are developed by the economic data, the City's proprietary data, statistical analysis of the City's historic financial data and trend lines; there are customizable controls based on local knowledge to ensure the forecast represents understanding of the local economic outlook. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to see the assumptions; requested the annual operating surplus deficit page be displayed; expressed concerns about the forecast; noted that she will not be supporting the matter. Mr. Morris presented slide page 9. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about the deficit showing an increase until 2023 with the amount decreasing until a surplus is shown in 2028; stated that she is concerned about the accuracy and the public thinking the City can spend money based on the turn in funding; she does not know what the assumptions were for revenue streams; the problem could be a longer and bigger issue, which will impact the City's revenue; she is unsure the City will come out of a deficit by 2024; the City has been using reserves significantly for pensions and OPEB; she has not supported using reserves; the report is a good start; however, she would have liked to see more information. Mr. Morris stated that he will share the information and provide the examples from the control panel; economics is a social science and is not a physical science; there is room for debate on the use of various revenue sources and whether to be aggressive, moderate or conservative; the City's reserve goes into a trust for OPEB liabilities and pensions; the use of reserves is not included in the forecast; part of the pension management strategy is to set money aside for said Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 19 April 20, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-04-20.pdf CityCouncil,2008-01-15,24,"General Fund department expenses; the General Fund does not have extra money; General Fund department expenses will be cut to pay for increasing pension and retirement costs; the question is where cuts will be made. (08-036) Mayor Johnson stated that some public entities are distributing agenda packs via flash drives; inquired whether the option should be considered for Boards and Commissions; stated the CMA is thinking about using flash drives; she would get more information on the matter. (08-037) Councilmember deHaan inquired when the budget review process would start. The City Manager responded internally, the internal process has started; stated a timeline will be provided to Council. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether feedback has been provided regarding the reserve. The City Manager responded information would be provided. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff has any idea regarding projected cuts at the State level. The City Manager responded the Finance Director has done an analysis; stated impacts are more immediate for the School District than the City. (08-038) Councilmember deHaan requested interpretation of the Charter provision regarding the use of recreation land owned by the City that was raised during the Golf Course discussion at the January 2, 2008 City Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 12:26 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 January 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf CityCouncil,2018-10-16,24,"Councilmember Oddie suggested tabling the motion. Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese expressed support. Mayor Spencer stated she would not call the question. The Economic Development Manager inquired who is in favor of adding C1 to the zoning. Mayor Spencer, Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Oddie stated aye, Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese stated no. The Economic Development Manager inquired who is in favor of adding CM, Commercial Manufacturing, to the zoning. The Council expressed unanimous support. The Economic Development Manager inquired about eliminating the cap on testing labs. The Council expressed unanimous support. The Economic Development Manager inquired about removing the dispersion from the land use ordinance Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated if the dispersion is removed, it needs to be put somewhere else. Mayor Spencer concurred; revised the question to: remove dispersion from the land use and put it into the regulatory ordinance. The Council expressed unanimous support. The Economic Development Manager inquired about modifying the dispersion of a mile to adopt different language. Mayor Spencer inquired what language would be considered as the replacement. The Economic Development Manager stated the language would read: ""overconcentration: in addition to the operational radius noted above, there should be no more than two.' The Assistant City Attorney stated the language presented mirrors Vice Mayor Vella's proposal; there would be no more than two dispensaries on either side of Grand Avenue; inquired the timing for dispensaries to open in specific locations; the language Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 16, 2018 21",CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf CityCouncil,2016-07-05,24,"Supervisors meeting; the Board voted to place affordable housing bond on the November ballot. (16-353) Councilmember Oddie requested the Council adjourn the meeting in Robert Follrath's memory. ADJOURNMENT (16-354) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:04 a.m. in memory of Robert Follrath. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf CityCouncil,2021-01-19,24,"50 Under discussion, the City Attorney stated if the matter is being continued, it must be date and time certain. Councilmember Knox White requested a friendly amendment to the motion to continue the matter to the February 2nd meeting at 6:59 p.m. Councilmember Spencer accepted the friendly amendment. On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of continuing the matter to February 2nd at 6:59 p.m. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Vella would consider hearing the last public comment and allowing public comment to close. Vice Mayor Vella responded in the negative; stated that she does not know if there are others wishing to speak; the matter has been held until the end and she does not want to close public comment. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the procedure should Council fail to continue the matter. The City Attorney responded if Council does not continue the matter with no action taken, staff will have to bring the matter back. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is fine with allowing the last public comment complete, provided that public comment is not closed when the matter is continued. Councilmember Knox White requested clarification that public speakers would not be allowed to speak a second time, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about lengthy agendas. On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would reconsider the previous motion by Councilmember Spencer; that Council has filibustered and is infringing upon public comment. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the previous motion to reconsider continues the matter to February 2nd [at 6:59 p.m.] and allows public comment to be completed and closed. Councilmember Spencer inquired whether there are no more speakers, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf CityCouncil,2016-06-21,24,"(16-314) Resolution No. 15182, ""Relative to Workers' Compensation Benefits for Registered Disaster Service Worker Volunteers."" Adopted. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous voice vote: Ayes - 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (16-315) The City Manager announced that the Fire Chief had to leave the meeting to attend to a fire at the auto upholstery shop on Park and Clement Streets; that she, Mayor Spencer, and Councilmember Oddie attended a tour of the USS Hornet where 500 Army Reservists have been training for emergency preparedness. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (16-316) Consider Directing the City Manager to Initiate and Begin the Process with the Planning Board to Propose Revisions to the Ordinance and Code Sections Defining Alameda's Inclusionary Housing for Residential Development. Not heard. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) (16-317) Consider Directing the City Manager to Schedule a Priority Setting Work Session. Not heard. (Mayor Spencer) COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (16-318) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Golf Commission. Not heard. (16-319) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested the meeting be adjourned in honor of the victims of the Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida. (16-320) Mayor Spencer thanked the Army for collaborating with the City; commended the USS Hornet for housing the Army during training; shared a proclamation for Juneteenth regarding freed slaves. (16-321) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced the Relay for Life event would be on Saturday at Encinal High School. ADJOURNMENT Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 21, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-06-21.pdf CityCouncil,2015-09-15,24,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like an evaluation of how AirBnb rentals would impact the availability of rental housing. The Interim City Manager stated AirBnb impacts are included in the Housing Study which will come to Council in December. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved following the recommendation of the referral. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. Under discussion, the Interim City Manager stated it is important that the City Attorney review the language of the TOT; staff can do outreach, but does not have personnel to enforce the TOT. Mayor Spencer clarified the motion is to include TOT for AirBnBs. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (15-564) Consider Requesting an Update on Project Stabilization Agreements (PSA) and Consider Providing Direction on the Priority, Deadline and Parameters of PSA for Alameda Point and Public Works Projects. (Councilmember Oddie). Councilmember Oddie made brief comments regarding his referral; stated Council should get a status update. Provided an update; stated there were good negotiations with staff; that he would support a policy: Andy Slivka, Alameda and Carpenters Union and Alameda County Building Trades. Mayor Spencer stated she would like an update before providing direction. The Interim City Manager stated staff can present an update, then Council could give direction. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved that an update on the PSAs be provided to Council, at which time Council could give direction to staff. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (15-565) Consider Directing Staff to Review the City's Process for Board and Commission Appointments. (Councilmember Oddie). Councilmember Oddie made brief comments regarding his referral. Discussed her interest in serving on the Commission on Disability Issues; outlined Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 September 15, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-15.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-11-28,24,"ITEM 2-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 28, 2018, 6:30 PM Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: So I would like to do a motion to move the January 9th meeting to February 9th, and it would be a retreat. And we would work out the timing, not sure what it will be, but I think it was like 10:00 to 2:00 last year. So do we have a second? Susan Deutch: I second. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Okay. All in favor? Arnold Brillinger: No, wait a minute. Let's have some discussion. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Go ahead. Arnold Brillinger: Yes, I don't think that we necessarily need to get less meetings because this group, when I look at the people here, there are a lot of things that can be discussed and voted on, and worked on in six meetings plus a retreat, and I would just not like to shorten it down again. So I'm saying we should still keep the January meeting and schedule a retreat somewhere. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Okay. And we also, I believe, have some speakers for our January 9th meeting. Correct, Laurie? So that's another thing that we want to take into consideration as well. Anto Aghapekian: I move that we have the January meeting, and also in addition, we have the retreat, so that we don't compromise the guests who will come on the 9th, and that's what I propose. Jennifer Roloff: I'll second that. That's okay. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: We want to vote on that? Leslie Morrison: So, technically, those are conflicting amendments; one is to reschedule the January, 9th meeting. So I think you have to vote on whether you're going to reschedule the January 9th meeting, and if that motion doesn't pass, then you could have a second motion to have an additional retreat meeting, but I don't know how you amend the first. I don't think it's a friendly amendment. I think you have to vote down the motion on the first. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Okay. So we'll vote. Leslie Morrison: Yeah, take a vote on whether we're going to move the January meeting and everyone who thinks that we should have an extra meeting would then vote no to rescheduling the January meeting, and then we would have an additional I think that that would be the proper way to do that. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Okay. So we'll go back to the January 9th meeting, a motion to keep it as it is and not reschedule it. Leslie Morrison: The motion is to reschedule. So all those in favor of rescheduling the January 9th meeting to a February retreat, that's the motion that's on. You could also withdraw that motion if the 03/13/19 Page 24 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-11-28.pdf CityCouncil,2017-06-06,24,"Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to bifurcate the vote also; even though he did not vote to put Measure L1 on the ballot, he stepped up to write a professional, easy to understand argument for Measure L1; the ordinance has a sunset and will eventually show if just cause and other provisions are working; he takes issue with a landlord saying Alameda renters are wanna be Alamedan's; rules are there not to punish good landlords, but to protect tenants; tenants can still be evicted with just cause evictions; requested staff to develop regulations on the program fee; he supports adopting the amendments. Mayor Spencer clarified to suggest that she is applying rules differently to people of color is not appropriate coming from a white man to a Mexican woman. Councilmember Oddie responded Mayor Spencer allowed Robert Sullwold exceed the time limit by 20 seconds. Mayor Spencer stated she has been very fair in how she runs the Council meetings. Councilmember Oddie responded that is a matter of opinion. Mayor Spencer stated race should not be brought up. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese has any suggestions on an alternative to not give a false sense of security, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the negative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese believes any part of San Francisco's situation stems from the percentage increase amount allowed for rent control; stated San Francisco is not comparable to Alameda's ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese responded Alameda is very similar to San Francisco as a very desirable place to live, which drives up rents and gentrification; stated that he does not have an answer but he cannot support something that has been shown not to deliver what is being said it will deliver. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated San Francisco allows a very small percentage increase on rent from one year to the next which is unlike what Alameda is doing. Councilmember Matarrese stated his comments are directed to just cause evictions. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion to separate the vote on the ordinance and the program fee. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the program fee of $120.00, as recommended in the staff report [adoption of the resolution] to be evaluated at the end of one year. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 15 June 6, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,24,"longer than 15 minutes. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (21-445) Announcement of the Porch of July Contest Winners. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced the winners. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-20,24,"to review, to which Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired why the last, best, and final offer was provided five days before the meeting. Mr. Brown responded SunCal has had weekly meetings with staff on the entire Alameda Point project; stated numerous issues have been addressed; the DDA had to be written to meet the schedule and the schedule was achieved; two or three drafts have been shared with staff. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Mr. Brown has been privy to concerns regarding the job/housing imbalance, economic development strategy, traffic, and endangered species prior to the staff report going out; stated SunCal knew what needed to be tackled; that he does not know whether a requested commercial study has been provided; SunCal's mode of operation has been the 11 th hour. Mr. Brown responded the traffic study has been an on-going effort for the last four years; recently, the public has been engaged. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is different from the traffic study developed from the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC). Mr. Brown responded that he does not know, but SunCal's Transportation Consultant would know. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when SunCal hired its Transportation Consultant. Jim Daisa, SunCal Transportation Consultant, responded he was hired approximately 9 months ago or longer. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when the traffic study was prepared. Mr. Daisa responded that he has not prepared a traffic study; however, he has developed a transportation strategy. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the PDC traffic study differs. Mr. Daisa responded the PDC study was an impact study, which is not what SunCal prepared; SunCal's transportation strategy is consistent with, and has some level of Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 12 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-05,24,"AUSD Board of Trustees. (17-433) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining items: the Animal Shelter lease [paragraph no. 17-435], the Teleport Communications lease [paragraph no. 17-436], the cannabis referral [paragraph no. 17-438], and the League delegate [paragraph no. 17-439]. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of hearing all remaining items. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Vella - 1. *** Stated the developer is putting up all the risk, not the City; not going forward with the project risks losing the ferry and affordable housing: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope. Stated that she supports the Site A development; if the developer succeeds, Alameda succeeds; urged Council to approve the project; stated the developer is a resident of Alameda and is committed to the project: Karen Bay, Alameda. Stated the project will help other businesses at Alameda Point; expressed support for the project: JP Frey, Alameda Point Studios. Councilmember Oddie stated the City has to decide whether to move forward with the developer or move on; the teacher housing created by the project is great; the commitment to labor and the jobs that will be created are critical; the risk is will the developer make the deadline and secure the financing; he is willing to trust the developer and support the project. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he will support the project for following reasons: the project will create a substantial amount of infrastructure; the potential for affordable housing; he is willing to gamble on not receiving the $4 million for the sports complex because it is off-set by the value added to the property by the infrastructure; he would like staff to ensure there is no right left to the developer if they cannot complete Phase 3; he would like the City to finish the commercial development; he does not want to be tied to the developer; he would like staff to plan for the failure of Phase 3 on behalf of the developer to be able to complete the commercial development. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she agrees with Mr. McDonough; questioned who is really being punished if the project does not go through; stated looking for a new developer will take too long; she would like to see the World War Il infrastructure replaced; Alameda is in need of housing; markets are changing and the time to act is now. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-20,24,"On the call for the question, the motion passed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 24 May 19, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-20.pdf CityCouncil,2007-11-06,24,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY - -NOVEMBER 6, 2007- - -7:29 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 8:09 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the recommendation to approve a Lease with Alameda Wine Company [paragraph no. 07-045 CIC] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ] ( 07-515 - CC/*07-043 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission meeting held on October 16, 2007. Approved. (*07-044 CIC) Recommendation to approve a Contract with Ampco Parking, Inc. in the amount of $124,682 for the management and operation of the Civic Center parking structure. Accepted. (07-045 CIC) Recommendation to approve a Lease with Alameda Wine Company for 2315 Central Avenue in the Historic Alameda Theater. The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation. Commissioner Gilmore stated Section 7 of the Lease specifies how the winebar would be used; she would like to add specific language requiring that the winebar remain a winebar and not be allowed to convert to a wine store; the Commission did not intend to have a third wine store in the Park Street District the intent was to have a wine bar that serves food; inquired whether the winebar owner has filed for licenses. The Development Services Director stated the owner does not want to Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community 1 Improvement Commission November 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf CityCouncil,2017-06-20,24,"Council with the options and the recommendation, Council would make the decision. Vice Mayor Vella clarified the Council is requesting staff to return with whether or not the current ordinance should be amended or if a separate ordinance should be created or if there could be a rule process. Mayor Spencer stated the easiest possible option. Vice Mayor Vella stated Council would make a determination and go through the necessary steps of a first or second reading, if needed. Mayor Spencer stated the proposed change should be in place as quickly as possible. Councilmember Matarrese stated the most effective option in a timely manner. The City Manager stated that she hears that Council would like an ordinance regardless; Stop Waste has informed the City that the most effective way to start the process is through education; inquired whether Council is directing staff to recommend one of two ordinances. Councilmember Matarrese stated his motion is recognizing that staff is already starting with the education; he wants an ordinance; if it is not written down, it does not count; his motion is to have an ordinance, there was a second with the conditions. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1. (17-402) Consider Directing Staff to Propose Regulations to Authorize Convenient and Safe Cannabis Businesses in Alameda. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (17-403) Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates for the League of California Cities Annual Conference. Not heard. (17-404) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Commission on Disability Issues (CDI), Golf Commission, Historical Advisory Board (HAB), Library Board, Planning Board, Public Art Commission (PAC) and Transportation Commission (TC). Mayor Spencer nominated Anto Aghapekian, Jennifer Barrett and Lisa Hall to the CDI; Ron Taylor and Joseph Van Winkle to the Golf Commission; Amber Bales, Cynthia Silva and Travis Wilson to the Library Board; and Laura Palmer to the TC. (17-405) Councilmember Oddie requested the Council meeting be adjourned in memory Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 20, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-06-20.pdf CityCouncil,2006-12-05,24,"project should be designed to ensure high quality in amenities, open space, and friendliness; proactive work needs to be done with potential store owners to let them know that potential sales would be not just from the Alameda consumer but from Jack London Square residents. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the DDA references Chapter 3 of the retail impact update; Chapter 3 contains a table that lists sample tenants; Council would have the opportunity to require Catellus to go back to the EDC, and CIC if desired, to revise the tenanting strategy if there is tenant deviation. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated said requirement should be implemented and would ease a lot of concerns. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated an EDC and CIC re-examination would be triggered if staff perceives that the list of tenants is strained. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated he would like to see a staff evaluation presented; he is concerned with the potential for an Orchard's with the existing Pagano's Hardware; the project is good and has broad support; the process has been great; the DDA should ensure that discussions happen. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated she is not satisfied with the TDM. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated different entitlements are given; there is a switch from an all commercial R&D entitlement to an entitlement that has retail and residential; the two entitlements have different impacts; the retail entitlement impacts Webster Street and the rest of the City's retail nodes; inquired whether the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between WABA and Catellus in the DDA. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the MOU is noted in DDA Section 13.33. louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the MOU is not mentioned in Section 4.10. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated WABA is addressed in the DA and in the DDA on page 83, and acknowledges that both parties have signed the MOU and what the obligations are; Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 13 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-18,24,"Mayor Spencer requested to hear from the current operator regarding what was requested. Mr. Bertoli and Mr. Voss responded that they were not specifically told to leave; stated they were told the use is not in the City's General Plan. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Garfinkle ignored condition two of the UP and did not feel the need to secure parking and have cars actually use the parking. Mr. Garfinkle responded once access to an offsite parking lot was secured, the Planning Board was to be notified to be considered in compliance; the current operator has been in compliance since 2015. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the current operator secured an offsite parking lot, to which Mr. Garfinkle responded the current operator has an offsite parking lot. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the current operator is still parking outside people's homes. Mr. Garfinkle responded that he does not know; stated that is what the City is reporting; the UP does not say the business cannot park cars in the area. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Garfinkle thought the condition did not prohibit Big Discount Tires from parking customer cars on the streets. Mr. Garfinkle responded the Planning Board did not put the language in the UP to prohibit parking cars on the streets; the prohibition states business vehicles, meaning vehicles with the business logo. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Garfinkle stopped parking business vehicles on the City streets. Mr. Garfinkle responded the City notified the franchisee that they were not to park business vehicles on the City streets. Mayor Spencer inquired whether language could be crafted to be clear; stated if the City does not want vehicles parking on the City streets, the language must be clear. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a problem with cars from the current occupant's customers parking in the neighborhood. The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the language is so confusing that the tire store was unaware they were not supposed to park customer cars on the streets. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-02-14,24,"ITEM 2-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES OF Wednesday, February 14, 2018 6:30 p.m. Beth Kenny: Laurie didn't have a chance between our retreat and today to work out that schedule, so we're going to look at that at our April meeting. 8. ADJORNMENT Beth Kenny: If there are no other announcements I'm going to move that we adjourn. Thank you for a great evening. Happy Valentine's Day, everybody. 02/14/18 Page 24 of 24",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-02-14.pdf CityCouncil,2014-12-02,24,"The Assistant City Manager commended the former Finance Director, Fred Marsh. Discussed using technology to make revisions to staff: Kurt Peterson, Alameda. Mayor Gilmore stated that she appreciated Mr. Peterson's comments, however, 200 employees were laid off during the recession; the remaining employees work hard with less and maintain a full-service city; the City has not made investments in technology for ten years or more; technology is at the end of its useful life; the issue is not always about employees being more efficient, but software is failing. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Mr. Peterson mentioned Police Officers; that she has yet to hear any resident request fewer Officers on the street; there are compliments all the time regarding the Police Department; the citizens do not want to reduce the number of Officers patrolling the City. Councilmember Tam stated the Police Chief built efficiencies into the system and should be commended. Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (14-507) Kurt Peterson, Alameda, stated the Del Monte item should have been moved up; suggested planning the agenda more efficiently. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (14-508) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB). Mayor Gilmore nominated Mark Sorensen for appointment to the SSHRB. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 2:36 a.m. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 December 2, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf CityCouncil,2022-01-04,24,"discretion for situations to be addressed accordingly; she will not support having staff return. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a desired time frame for the matter to return to Council. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded that she has asked staff to figure out the matter; noted some RVs are ticketed and some are not; expressed support for staff verifying the policy for the public when convenient; stated that she would like the matter to be enforced consistently through the City. On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3. (22-029) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Councilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Knox White stated all Councilmembers received an email for the matter; he followed up with staff; the person is not an HOA member; the loophole used has been closed and the matter has been addressed; the issue of concern was not related to the HOA; the person was connected with proper City staff; the requestor originally thought the HOA maintains the green space; he will not support the referral. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter should be looked at in the long-term to ensure people who buy affordable units are included in the HOA. Councilmember Knox White stated the matter is in-progress. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the information satisfies Councilmember Herrera Spencer. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the negative; stated the matter should be included in City policies. Councilmember Daysog stated the broader policy is spot-on; if there are projects where the City is implicated with a subsequent HOA, a City policy should require the HOA voting process include all residents. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the referral. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3. (22-030) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember Daysog). Not heard. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 4, 2022 24",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf CityCouncil,2022-04-19,24,"staff can bring back the Housing Element back. The City Manager responded staff can bring the Housing Element on May 3rd or 17th. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can place the matter under Continued Agenda Items to ensure it is heard. Councilmember Knox White stated Council has received correspondence requesting Council hold a second hearing after the May 5th Historical Advisory Board meeting; proposed Council hear the matter on May 17th; staff has stated the matter can be brought forth that date. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there are any deadlines related to wrapping up the draft Housing Element. The City Manager responded the Housing Element should be heard by May or early June. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft proposed Council place the supportive housing matter on the Continued Agenda Items section of the May 3rd meeting agenda and she would decide whether to continue the Housing Element matter on the same section for May 3rd or on the May 17th meeting agenda. The Assistant City Manager stated the deadline to submit the draft Housing Element is the week of May 23rd; Council can hear the matter on May 17th without issue. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether it is possible to frame the draft Housing Element discussion as a Council discussion. The City Attorney responded the frame of the discussion depends on the staff report; actions able to be taken by Council will be limited by the agenda title and report contents. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of placing the supportive housing and Housing Element on the May 3rd meeting under the Continued Agenda Items section. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like the Housing Element heard May 3rd; continuing the matter to only May 17th does not allow for a vote on the draft recommendation. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for options being presented to address multiple concerns. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. [Absent: Councilmembers Knox White and Vella - 2.] (22-278) Public Hearing to Review and Comment on Annual Report on the General Plan and Draft Housing Element Update. Not heard. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council April 19, 2022 22",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf CityCouncil,2008-07-15,24,"which Mr. Ratto and Ms. Moehring responded in the negative. Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation. Chair Johnson stated that a requirement should be added regarding spending a certain percentage of grant funding on marketing and promotion. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion with inclusion of a policy for promotion and evaluation for GABA [in addition to PSBA and WABA; stated the issue is a policy decision; a return is needed if the City invests approximately $225,000 in tax dollars; the return can be predicated on 50% of grant funding going to promotion; evaluations need to be performed. Commissioner Gilmore stated the measurement [of success) would be difficult for GABA because GABA is spread across the City. Chair Johnson stated customer surveys could be performed. Commissioner Matarrese stated business license fees are calculated on gross; increased performance could be reviewed. Councilmember deHaan concurred that an evaluation needs to be performed. Commissioner Tam stated sales tax revenue has been flat for many years; a better measurement would be the return to the City; business districts take care of the street maintenance and advertising, which the City cannot do; she does not want measurement tied directly to producing a business tax increment. Commissioner Matarrese stated that business license tax and sales tax revenues are a bottom line measurement. Commissioner Tam clarified that the motion is to fund recommended levels to all three business districts; inquired what would be the threshold for advertising and promotion. Chair Johnson responded 50%; stated GABA can advise how their success would be measured. Commissioner Gilmore stated GABA is different from PSBA and WABA ; PSBA and WABA are spending an incredible amount of money on advertising; GABA has never spent 50% of grant funding on advertising. Eric Kos, GABA President, stated that he has been GABA President Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 5 July 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf CityCouncil,2020-02-18,24,"Councilmember Vella stated the authority to not hear the items in closed session was not previously available; $25,000 is a low amount; expressed concern for Councilmembers intervening with personnel matters and violating the Charter; expressed support Council be informed about settlements, but not the dollar amount. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is convinced no cap amount is needed. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is in support; withdrew his motion. Councilmember Vella moved introduction of the ordinance as drafted, with direction that Council be informed within a week of a settlement, with updates at the mid-year and annual budget. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (20-107) The City Manager made an announcement regarding a planned signal outage and a new text 9-1-1 program. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (20-108) Consider Modifications to the Art in City Hall Program. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments regarding the referral. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the request should go through the Public Art Commission (PAC), to which Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the negative. The Public Information Officer stated in its pilot stage, the program was presented to the PAC for feedback; final approval came to Council. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether censorship should be considered. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded criteria must be followed. The Public Information Officer stated there can be no violence, nudity, or hate speech. Councilmember Oddie expressed concern about content based regulations. The Public Information Officer stated a call for proposals was issued; roughly 40 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 February 18, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-02-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-10-18,24,"other libraries, but it is a possibility. Mayor Spencer stated there is equity involved to have a station at the Harbor Bay and West End libraries. The Library Director stated the issue is finding a large enough space where someone could work on their bike and not impede the walking path. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Alameda Science and Technology Institute (ASTI) will be included in the Student Success Card program. The Library Director responded ASTI will not be included in the pilot phase. Mayor Spencer inquired how long will the pilot phase be, to which the Library Director responded one year. Vice Mayor Matarrese thanked the Library Director for keeping up with future needs. (16-540) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Streamline Improvements to Existing Residential Properties and Minor Administrative, Technical, and Clarifying Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance Regarding Chimneys, Accessory Buildings, Windows, Existing Driveways and Parking, Non-Conforming Setbacks, Home Occupation Signage, and Other Miscellaneous Amendments. [The proposed amendments are categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations]. Introduced. The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Planning Services Manager listed the ten amendments. Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is any impact to the General Fund, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the negative. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the floor area under amendment number 5 has to do with an accessory unit in the back. The Planning Services Manager responded in the negative; stated the floor area refers to converted space that meets building space requirements. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a homeowner add space in the attic does not trigger a parking change. The Planning Services Manager responded 750 square feet is the threshold for how Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 18, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf CityCouncil,2020-04-21,24,"not be a strong part of criteria; stated financial needs and viability should still be reviewed. The City Manager stated that he has made note of each Councilmember's input; staff has been given direction with some consistencies; a proposal can be brought back to Council for discussion. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the 90-day timeframe works. The City Manager responded that he supports the timeframe. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether enough direction has been provided. The City Manager responded staff can bring a proposal back for consideration. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council April 21, 2020 14",CityCouncil/2020-04-21.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-16,24,"Councilmember Daysog inquired how the 50% ownership would be verified. The Assistant City Attorney responded the housing provider needs to provide documentation that the person qualifies as a housing provider; a copy of the vesting deed could be used for the program administrator to verify it is a human being. Mayor Spencer inquired if everyone is in agreement. Councilmember Daysog inquired if in the case of a landlord wanting to move a relative into a granny flat or a cottage in the back of the house, who would be responsible for showing proof of being the owner, the landlord or the person moving in. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in said case, they would be just the enumerated relative and not need to show proof. Mayor Spencer stated that she is going to skip over the relocation part and come back to it because it seems complicated. Councilmember Oddie disagreed; stated what is stated is clear; if the housing provider has taken an action to terminate tenancy on the grounds set forth in Subsection 6- 58.150A, of no cause with the limitations. The Assistant City Attorney inquired if the concern is Subsection A does not cover the situation of a fixed term lease ending. Councilmember Oddie questioned why impose limits on no cause evictions if every person on a one year lease will be terminated; stated landlords wanted no cause evictions to let a bad tenant go without having to pay an attorney. The Community Development Director stated the language is drafted to cover one year leases that convert to month-to-month; then it becomes a no cause eviction which would be entitled to relocation benefits if it is a no cause eviction; a tenant would not be entitled to relocation benefits at the end of a fixed term lease because the term is agreed upon by the landlord and tenant. Councilmember Oddie stated anyone that has a year or six month lease can be evicted without cause without paying relocation fees and the City requiring everyone to have a one year lease, which is basically saying everyone is at risk of eviction. The Community Development Director stated if the lease has an evergreen provision, a fixed term lease cannot be offered unless the tenant requests it. Councilmember Oddie questioned who would want a one year lease. Mayor Spencer responded that some people want a set term. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-09-04,24,"Alameda Records. The Recreation and Parks Director made brief comments and gave a Power Point presentation. Adam Gillitt, Alameda Museum, provided information; gave a Power Point presentation. *** Vice Mayor Vella left the dais at 11:22 p.m. and returned at 11:24 p.m. Mayor Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (18-487) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Report for the Rent Stabilization Program. The Community Development Director made brief comments. The Rent Stabilization Program Director gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the presentation addressed the burden on smaller landlords to pay relocation fees not being more important than the needs of the tenant; the landlord community is putting together an assistance fund that perhaps smaller landlords could use. The Rent Stabilization Program Director stated that he has heard about said effort, which is a good idea; a recommendation has been made in the past about certain financial breaks for smaller landlords; he is not in favor of a two tiered system. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the percentage of landlords included in the information reported; discussed the need for better data collection. The Rent Stabilization Program Director stated the most recent fee study allows demographic data to be voluntarily reported. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how good the data is if it is voluntarily produced. The Rent Stabilization Program Director responded the data is very limited; stated that he is trying to come up with ways to get more robust data, including a comprehensive database. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a goal to expand the range of translated materials, inquired what five languages are currently provided. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 September 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-09-04.pdf CityCouncil,2021-02-02,24,"criminal activity cannot occur from an Officer; personnel investigations are confidential due to State law; reports have been submitted; urged residents to share information about current Police Officers with City staff for investigation. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the tweets from the former APD Officer have been reviewed; whether incidents occurred while on-duty; questioned whether the concerns are being addressed. The City Manager responded the concerns will be looked into; stated that he had not previously heard about the incidents explained. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City Manager is the point of contact for such information to be shared by community members. The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated that he or the Interim Police Chief can be contacted with information. Vice Mayor Vella stated regarding requests for data, raw numbers without context leads to a number of different conclusions; the way in which events are defined, the context provided and who is involved matters; expressed concern about different ratios in terms of who has historically been stopped in Alameda; stated the data is not definitive and more clarity on trends and the meaning of data will be helpful for all in making decisions; expressed concern about the lack of housing, transitional housing, and the impact of COVID-19; stated the trends are not specific to Alameda, many are National and regional; stressors are compounding and tolls are taken on members of the public due to economic and housing insecurities; 2020 has been an anomaly; questioned how to account for such an anomaly in the data to ensure that response is not just focused on one particular year; expressed support for looking at all underlying issues and overall trends relative to data. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification related to the difficulties in job performance; stated there is a search for a new Police Chief; inquired how the City can attract, hire and retain good Officers while working in a challenging environment. The Interim Police Chief responded that he has found APD employees are a good group, which is community-minded and service-oriented; APD is not perfect; however, no department is; Officers want the community to know they care about their job and what they do; the last year has been rough; APD Officers are looking for stability and understanding of what the community is looking for and what to expect going forward; the stability and understanding will be key in moving forward attracting new Officers; there will be a balance between Committee reports, residents, and business owners; Officers feel as though they are in the middle and are unclear. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council will consider recommendations from the Steering Committee on March 16th; Council would like to hear from citizens prior to the March 16th meeting; noted a survey is being mailed to all households and needs to be Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 19 February 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2009-02-07,24,"the fund balance is $1. 1 million less should be made clear. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is recommending that the fund balance reflect the true amount, not that the amount be taken out of the General Fund and the ISF deficit be zeroed out she prefers the three year repayment plan. Mayor Johnson inquired why the IT amount is reflected if it has not been spent, to which the City Manager responded the number represents the amount projected to be spent by the end of the Fiscal Year. Mayor Johnson requested a breakdown of the IT number. Councilmember Gilmore stated the plan is good; the amount will be accounted for on the front page of the fund balance; departments would be charged for three years to catch upi staff would account for future costs; Council reprioritized IT funds years ago; requested that IT give a presentation breaking down how the $600,000 would be spent and the plans going forward to modernize the City, including cost. The Interim Finance Director suggested the information be presented as part of the Finance budget. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council has ever made cuts in the amounts departments pay to the IT ISF. Councilmember Gilmore stated IT was a separate department when Council cut the budget. The City Manager stated that the IT ISF started a year ago. Mayor Johnson stated that she does not recall IT being cut. Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he could not support paying off the [ISF] deficit without knowing the history, which should be provided. Councilmember Matarrese stated IT is the ideal situation to contract out; server farms can be maintained by companies offsite; that he wants separate direction given; the Council seems to be in consensus that the fund balance on the front page of the budget should be the true number; separate direction should be given about whether the debt should be repaid over three years or zeroed out now. Mayor Johnson stated money should not be taken out of the fund Special Meeting Alameda City Council 24 February 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf CityCouncil,2006-11-21,24,"The City Manager stated staff would check for consistency with the General Plan; the matter would be addressed if the General Plan does not reflect C-C. The Development Services Director stated separate land use maps for the CIC improvement areas would be done away with and default to the City's General Plan; the General Plan would become the dominant, guiding principle behind all land use evaluations for the CIC. In response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry regarding when said change would take place, the Development Services Director stated the amendment is being considered tonight. Mayo/Chair Johnson inquired whether the action tonight is the last step, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. There being no further speakers, Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of closing the Public Hearing. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-572CC/06-072CIC Joint Public Hearing to consider certification of a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , approval of a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, a Development Agreement Amendment, two new Development Agreements, a Disposition and Development Agreement Amendment and a new Disposition and Development Agreement to replace 1,300,000 square feet of approved, but not yet constructed, office and research and development uses with 400,000 square feet of a Health Club and up to 300 residential units in the Catellus Mixed Use Development. Continued to December 5, 2006. Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Hearing was continued to December 5, 2006. David Kirwin, Alameda, stated there are six different topics; noted that he would not have the ability to vote on one item with six different topics; stated the City should report out on closed session discussions on the matter. Mayor/Chair Johnson requested staff to describe the processi noted the agreement would be available to the public a certain number of days prior to the hearing. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 12 Community Improvement Commission November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-07,24,"meeting; meetings are not being completed due to larding up a political show and tell; he is frustrated and has worked hard to help move unsupported matters along in the agenda; expressed concern about wasting time; stated there have been 18 hearings on the project; the design for the project has not been addressed in any comments; it is time to let projects, which conceptually have had support from voters, move forward. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like Council to direct the City Attorney's office to work with Planning Department staff to consider limiting appeals on projects which address homelessness; Council will never accomplish what is needed as a City to address homelessness if there continues the approval process continues to be stretched for projects; expressed support for comments indicating a calculated targeting to stall the Wellness Center project again, which is morally wrong and costly; there is no other reason the other two matters were pulled from the Call for Review and not the Wellness Center; she would like City staff to look into whether the issue of design review decisions should be appealable to the City Council; design review decisions being appealable to City Council is not universal among cities; outlined a League of California Cities Statewide Policy Committee meeting tour of Corsair Flats; noted some of the veterans housed in the units had been on the street for ten years; some people live and die on the street in the same period of time; it is morally wrong to throw specious roadblocks in the way to appease a few disgruntled community members that cannot get over the fact that the project has been approved time and time again; ensuring the delay does not happen again will take some redesigning of process. Councilmember Daysog stated the core of the issue and reason for Councilmember Herrera Spencer and himself to bring the matter forth is not to target the facility, but due to a mistake in the agendizing of the matter and the wrong telephone number being listed; he does not know how many people might have called and decided not to follow through due to the incorrect number; it is imperative that projects with high stakes have City Hall to get the low hanging fruit correct; he believes that he is right to point the error out and Call for Review; expressed support for seeing the facility moving forward; stated the City must meet the minimum standards of getting information out correctly for a full discussion and for democracy to work; expressed support for the enthusiasm the project garners and for seeing the project built; stated the other items on the Planning Board agenda were time sensitive and had to be reasonably decided not to be included in the Call for Review; the matter is settled and the project will move forward. Vice Mayor Vella stated shame on Council for having many hearings on the same project and not streamlining the process; the project is in her backyard and she is proud ; all should be proud for the project which has currently withstood 18 public hearings; expressed support for Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's comments related to looking at the City's process and whether Calls for Review should be allowed or permitted for design review; Council needs to get back to business; the project has been decided and has overcome a lot of hurdles; the project is not high stakes; Council has made the project much more difficult than it needs to be; she disagrees with her colleagues that time is not of the essence for the project; the City does not have services for the most vulnerable community members and does not have adequate housing with end of life care; said Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 16",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-02,24,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, with the stipulation that the ""Bureau Bureau Commander"" be typo corrected. Councilmember Herrera Spencer agreed to include the amendment in the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. (21-703) Recommendation to Reorganize the City's Parking Management Program and Parking Fund; (21-703A) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Parking Fund Budget to Restructure the Parking Fund; and (21-703B) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Salary Schedule for the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) and the Alameda Police Officers Association, Non-Sworn (PANS) to Move the Two Parking Enforcement Positions from PANS to ACEA and Reassign Two Full-Time Parking Enforcement Position Allocations from the Police Department to Public Works. Not heard. (21-704) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease with Rhoads Property Holdings, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Substantially in the Form of Exhibit 2, for Thirty-Six Months for Buildings 338, 608, and 608A-C, Located at 50 and 51 West Hornet Avenue, at Alameda Point. Not heard. (21-705) Recommendation that City Council, Boards and Commissions Annually Review Meeting Schedules for Possible Conflicts that Inhibit Maximum Public Participation. Not heard. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Not heard. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Not heard. COUNCIL REFERRALS (21-706) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard. (21-707) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard. (21-708) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 2, 2021 21",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf CityCouncil,2018-05-15,24,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY- - MAY 15, 2018- -6:59 P.M. AGENDA ITEM (18-274) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Public Employee Dismissal/Release Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957. Employee/Position: Jill Keimach, City Manager (Contingent upon the employee's request for a public session). Not heard. Lara Weisiger City Clerk Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 15, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-05-15.pdf CityCouncil,2017-12-19,24,"(17-774) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting in memory of Ed Lee at 12:28 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 December 19, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-12-19.pdf CityCouncil,2021-12-07,24,"636 Harbor Remembrance Day at Coast Guard Island Alameda; urged those that are eligible to get their vaccination and booster shots. ADJOURNMENT (21-831) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:29 p.m. in memory of Peter Hegarty. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-05-09,24,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MUTES OF Wednesday May 9, 2018 6:30 p.m. Beth Kenny: Great. Thank you. I will rack my brain but I think you guys did a great job. Let's move on to agenda item five, Old Business. Review of liaison assignments. I'm just going to read through our assignments and if we have any questions or comments, let's go over it now. So, I am assigned to SSHRB [Social Service and Human Resource Board] and alternate for City Council. I have Vice Chair Barrett for the Planning, and alternate for Housing Authority. Also alternate for Historic Advisory Board. And Commissioner Aghapekian, I have for Mastick and alternate for Planning Board, and alternate for the Rec and Park Board, rather. And then Commissioner Brillinger I have for Transportation, and you're also representing us with the AC Transit. Beth Kenny: Commissioner Deutsch, you were not present so we assigned you things. Right now we have you at Library and School Board. Do you have a preference as to which one? Do you want both? I know you worked in the past with Library. Susan Deutsch: I've met with the library. I thought I was going to do Parks and Rec. Anto Aghapekian: That's what I remember. I remember you doing Parks and Rec. Beth Kenny: You were, and then every year at the retreat, we opened it up, and I'm sorry, I didn't think to save it for you. I am happy to switch off with you, if you want to do SSHRB instead of the School Board? Susan Deutsch: I can do the School Board. Beth Kenny: Okay. Jennifer Roloff: Or I can do School Board if you'd like to do Rec and Park. That's okay. Susan Deutsch: Either one. Jennifer Roloff: Yes, I have two kids in schools right now, so I wouldn't mind having a reason to go, for sure. Susan Deutsch: Alright. Jennifer Roloff: I was just on our PTA's legislation and advocacy for the PTA, so I'm very familiar with what's going on, and if you want to switch, that's fine. Susan Deutsch: If that's what you're comfortable with that. Jennifer Roloff: Yes. You prefer Rec and Park? Susan Deutsch: Well, I'm just kinda interested in that area and I've been doing research. And wanted to talk about it. Jennifer Roloff: Is that okay? 05/30/18 Page 24 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-05-09.pdf CityCouncil,2007-01-02,24,"would be maintained by the developer and whether the MSD would be paid for by the project and would not be a burden of the City or residents, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan stated a commitment has been made to reutilize some of the buildings even if Clif Bar is not a tenant. inquired whether there is a market for the buildings. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded that Clif Bar is the identified tenant for the adaptive reuse; Catellus could continue the demolition of the warehouses if Clif Bar went away and there were not a replacement tenant ; currently, Catellus is not going in said direction but is looking at preserving more warehouses. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see some ensurance if the project performs better than expected; a trigger point needs to be established for getting additional funding if $425,000 is not enough; he would like to see some type of trigger point that shows an evaluation would be done against the agreed upon criteria after a defined period of time that allows additional money to be allocated up to a certain percentage for the TDM Program if the project is performing better than the Performa. The Supervising Planner stated the commercial development agreement could be brought back to Council in two weeks with Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated it is important for the motion to have as much specificity tonight for the purpose of having the ordinance adopted in two weeks. Mr. Marshall inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese was making a connection between the project being more successful than anticipated and some additional burden on the TDM Program or whether the thoughts were independent. Councilmember Matarrese stated the connection is that there will be more traffic if the project is wildly successful. Mr. Marshall stated the challenging aspect is how to measure the TDM Program; a cap was established to understand the financial impact to the developer; an escalator is in the drafted document which is not insignificant : the developer seems to be hit twice with a percentage increase and an escalatori suggested that the escalator be deferred until the adjustment is made; additional language would need to be added to the underwriting to explain the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf CityCouncil,2005-08-16,24,"Counci lmember Matarrese moved approval [of upholding the Planning Board decision with the conditions outlined]. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would not support the motion because he is concerned about the business deal; charging rent of $0.40 per square foot gets the City $3 million; charging rent of $0.80 per square foot would greatly increase the amount and is still below the $1.35 per square foot market figure. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the current colors of the historic theater are the original colors. The Development Manager responded the original colors are not known; however, the original colors were light. Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about putting too much on a small parcel; that he would like to see downscaling to bring the project into some proportion; since downscaling is not occurring, he would not support the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan - 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (05-409) Michael Robinson, San Francisco Bay Resort Club, submitted a letter to the Council; stated that he has been working with Fish and Wild Life, the Veterans Administration, and the Veterans Community Resource Federation (VCRF) to create a plan for Alameda Point that provides for the needs of said entities; requested the cooperation of City staff in submitting the resort plans as part of the upcoming environmental review. (05-410) Pete Clark stated the development of Alameda Point would include transit opportunities. (05-411) Connie J. Rozenkowski, VCRF, stated that there is a proposed plan to convert the Bachelors' Enlisted Quarters at the former Navy Base into a cultural center that would provide programs for veterans, low income families, college students, and foster care children leaving the foster care system; the programs would be funded by the resort development. (05-412) - Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed development. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-06-19,24,"ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk and Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission 7 June 19, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-19.pdf CityCouncil,2005-07-19,24,"amount to get the ball rolling since Council meets every two weeks ; the empowerment lasts only until the next Council meeting and the matter is discussed if the amount would be higher, which is why he was asking about the $35,000; using said amount is acceptable if the amount can carry the day; the Council has to meet its Charter obligation to empower the City Attorney based on the threshold if there is a much larger case. Mayor Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with said suggestion; $35,000 [could be spent until the next Council meeting; at the next Council meeting, the Council would vote to hire the outside counsel inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese was making said suggestion. Councilmember Matarrese stated to use the language in the Charter, it empowers the City Attorney to employ outside counsel. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the City Attorney has $35,000 to spend; for example, a lawsuit comes in, the City Attorney can spend $35,000, notifies the Council by e-mail, etc. and at the next Council meeting, the Council gets a status report. Mayor Johnson stated the hiring of the attorney that the City Attorney is suggesting would be brought to Council at its next meeting. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the City Attorney could not do so when the City is sued. Mayor Johnson stated that the City could always change attorneys; that she assumes the Council would approve the attorney that the City Attorney suggests. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether said suggestion means that the attorney has not started work yet. Mayor Johnson responded in the negative; stated the City Attorney can spend $35,000 until the next Council meeting, when the hiring of outside counsel comes to the Council for approval. Councilmember deHaan noted said suggestion differs from the City Attorney's proposal in the staff report stated if the reporting segment is actively working, Council can monitor and get in the middle of things right off the bat if something goes astray; that he does not have enough questions to make drastic changes; the City Attorney can be given $35,000, or the amount can be dropped down to $20,000, to get started; Councilmembers will receive a report the threshold can be changed if two or three go astray. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf CityCouncil,2016-09-20,24,"Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired if staff will come back with a plan with all the input; stated other decisions can be driven by the RFQ process; items can be addressed when talking to the developer. The Base Reuse Director responded items can be made explicit in the RFQ. Councilmember Daysog stated the project needs to be thought through; the City needs to have a clear plan from the get go and to decide what kind of units are needed; he cannot support the project. The Base Reuse Director responded the intent of the plan is not to micromanage the uses; the zoning is very flexible; the plan is to weigh all the different tradeoffs. Councilmember Oddie stated he is not comfortable going from 300 to 425 units; he believes keeping 125 units in reserves is a good idea; he cannot support adding the 125 units; he only supports sticking with the 300 units. Mayor Spencer stated her concern is the City never seems to build work force housing; doing only luxury and very low housing does not address the people in the middle, who have serious housing needs. The Base Reuse Director stated staff would come back and show Council if work force housing can be afforded within the 233 or if extra is needed; the analysis will come back. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned what is meant by work force housing. Councilmember Daysog stated work force housing for purposes of the Alameda County Housing Bond Program that Council supported is above moderate income which is 120 to 150% of the median. The Base Reuse Director responded the wording can be in the staff report when staff comes back with the RFQ. (16-474) Presentation on the Emergency Operations Center and Training Update. The Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (16-475) The City Manager noted on September 27th, neighborhood meeting would be held to educate about Jean Sweeney homeless encampments and answer questions from the residents. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are encampments not just at Jean Sweeney, they are in other parts of the City; inquired if all areas will be covered. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 20, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf CityCouncil,2019-05-07,24,"sold and developed into something nice; the project will not be a catalyst for the Enterprise District; market studies were not provided. Councilmember Vella expressed concern with the project; stated there will be monitoring, but it will need to continue throughout the duration of the lease not just a short period of time; the applicant should bear the cost of monitoring, which should be done by someone else; expressed support for using Alameda Point consultants; expressed concern about the lease being for three buildings, not just one, for a total of roughly 85,000 square feet; stated there is little job creation over the long term; the lease options are not favorable. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned if Councilmembers Oddie and Vella do not support the item. Councilmember Vella stated that she is laying out her terms for a lease agreement to be acceptable. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that the Assistant Community Development Director noted the monitoring would be conducted by the Stated Water Board; stated that she supports monitoring longer than five years. Councilmember Vella stated that she would also like to utilize the Alameda Point biological consultants and allow for a community discussion; expressed support for only one lease extension; expressed concern about amount of pressure put on the current electrical system and the AMP staff workload increase. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification that Councilmember Vella would support one option to extend. Councilmember Vella responded that she will support one five year extension; stated technology is rapidly expanding. Mr. Connaughton stated the extension is acceptable; the CEQA process will allow for consultant input. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that Councilmember Vella desires a City lead community discussion with the consultants and biologists, not just giving the community an opportunity to write letters as part of a CEQA process; inquired how a condition can be written to address Councilmember Vella's concern about AMP. Councilmember Vella expressed concern about previous negotiations which increased AMP loads. Vice Mayor Knox White noted the right conditions need to appear in order for Councilmember Vella to approve the item. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 7, 2019 23",CityCouncil/2019-05-07.pdf CityCouncil,2019-07-02,24,"Board of Commissioners, Ronald Limoges for reappointment to the Recreation and Park Commission, and Scott Weitze for appointment to the Transportation Commission. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ashley Zieba Deputy City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 2, 2019 23",CityCouncil/2019-07-02.pdf CityCouncil,2022-05-17,24,"Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that regarding the Labor Negotiators, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]; regarding Property Negotiators, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the following Councilmembers Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1]; regarding Employee Appointment/Hiring staff provided information and Council provided direction, including forming a subcommittee of Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vide Mayor Vella with no vote taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 17, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf CityCouncil,2017-04-18,24,"On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (17-267) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings for Council to Adopt. Considered as part of the first bird-safe buildings referral. [paragraph no. 17-266]. (17-268) Consider Directing Staff to Prepare a Report on the City of Alameda Acquiring/Taking Title to the Uncompleted Strip of Shoreline Park next to Harbor Bay Parkway. Mayor Spencer made comments regarding the referral. Stated Council should clarify that the property is park land: Pat Lamborn, Alameda. Urged Council to move forward with the referral: Cindy Margulis, Golden Gate Audubon Society. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the referral. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the adjacent property owner should pay for developing the park land; she does not support the City taking on the responsibility that rightfully belongs to a developer. The City Attorney stated preliminary research of the documents and the strip of land indicates it is already to be dedicated to the City; there is a public access easement across the property; the idea is that when a developer develops the adjacent property, the City typically requires the developer to do some initial improvements to the strip of land, which is why the City has not yet taken the property. Councilmember Matarrese stated the original referral regarding the issue is to direct staff to bring back a report on the request; he would like to see a report on what steps need to be taken to acquire the property; Council does not need to decide tonight whether to take the property, but he would just like to know what are the considerations; a report would help make the determination. The City Attorney inquired whether the strip of land is the only consideration or if Council is interested in a broader piece of property, to which Mayor Spencer responded just the strip. The City Manager inquired whether Council would like cost estimates to purchase, to which Mayor Spencer responded she would like to know the status; stated she understands the City could take title. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 April 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-01-05,24,"The City Attorney noted the threshold pertains to a RRAC hearing and is not a rent cap. Councilmember Oddie stated that he thought the threshold is the trigger for binding arbitration. The Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated landlords would be required to notify the Housing Authority and RRAC that they intend to raise the rents above 5%, which is a landlord driven way to go to the RRAC for mediation; then, if the RRAC makes a recommendation that a party does not like, the matter would go to binding arbitration. Mayor Spencer stated that she raised the suggestion because tenants have indicated that they are afraid to go to the RRAC; she is suggesting shifting the burden to the landlord, which addresses retaliation; there would not be a cap; instead, landlords would be required to attend the RRAC meeting to explain why they want an increase above 5%. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the further protection would be that the matter can go onto binding arbitration; there would be an incentive to resolve the matter at the RRAC knowing there is an extra step which is binding. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there is a possibility that every increase above 5% sent to the RRAC could end up with none of the cases being mediated and all could end up being arbitrated, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie stated a database should track every increase to determine if everyone is receiving a 4.99% increase. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to resolve whether everyone agrees 5% should be the trigger point; everything above 5% would require the landlord to take the matter to the RRAC. The City Attorney clarified all increases over 5% would require the landlord to take the case to the RRAC; however, the only cases which could move up to binding arbitration are units subject to Costa Hawkins. The Community Development Director stated staff has heard consensus on the approach to rent increases; inquired whether landlords should be required to initially offer a one year lease, which is included in Ordinance 1. Mayor Spencer responded that she agrees; inquired whether everyone is on board. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether one year leases would be offered subsequently. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-15,24,"Mayor Johnson - 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (10-299) Michael Johnson Torrey wished Vice Mayor deHaan and Councilmember Matarrese Happy Father's Day. * * (10-300) Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. COUNCIL REFERRALS (10-301) Consideration of Addressing Parking in Impacted Residential Neighborhoods around Alameda High School. Councilmember Matarrese gave a brief presentation. Speaker: Robb Ratto, PSBA. Councilmember Gilmore encouraged staff to look at St. Mary's High School in Berkeley; stated students get parking permits, but priority is given to students who carpool; St. Joseph's High School would be another place to look. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf CityCouncil,2006-06-20,24,"the ROI reduction is the reason that the franchise and in-lieu fees are down 11%, to which the Finance Director responded partially. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated finding money under different shells is hard work; choices need to be made; thought should be given to applying future redevelopment revenues to positions and programs a plan is needed for dealing with the public safety shortfall. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the City is taking a step in undoing some of the tangle with State takeaways; he is concerned with the direction of sales tax revenues and living on the bubble of the property and transfer tax; the City needs to be vigilant and careful; staffing, benefits, and deferred maintenance need to be reviewed in the ten-year forecast; evaluation should be done at mid-term; focus should be on the need first applying incoming revenues to the reserve should be discretionary; damaged infrastructure that provides the highest risk to individuals should be reviewed; sidewalk maintenance should be reviewed closely because of trips and falls. Mayor/Chair Johnson thanked the City Manager/Executive Director and staff for an informative and clear budget stated she appreciates that the budget was put together strategically; goals and long-term issues were addressed; she hopes that the residents learn that the budget is a matter of balancing employees' work is appreciated; employee's issues will be considered. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the budget shows a positive movement the City is not completely out of the woods; the City Manager/Executive Director made some monumental steps to fill required positions and to address needs that have not been met in the last four years. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the last two-year budget addressed cutting programs and positions which would minimally impact services to the residents; the City is now looking at adding services and positions and has come a long way; thanked everyone for working very hard on the budget. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated funding Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 10 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,24,"From: Kristin Fairfield Date: March 11, 2021 at 4:54:45 PM PST To: ARPD , Amy Wooldridge Cc: Jon Greer , Ken Fagel Subject: [EXTERNAL] Signatures Directly from the Community 250+ in 5 days Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Dear Dir. Amy Wooldridge and Commission Chair Adrienne Alexander, Vice Chair Eric Robbins, Commission Member Ron Limoges, and Commission Member Tara Navarro, Here are over 250 signatures that the Alameda Tennis Coalition collected in just five days at the Fairfield Tennis Complex and from various tennis groups. All in support for keeping court 4 as a tennis only court. We'll see you tonight at the meeting Thank you for your time and your attention to this matter, Kristin Fairfield Daughter of Joan Friedrich Fairfield Organizer of the Alameda Tennis Coalition 510 1484-6932 istinfairfield19@gmail.com",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-21,24,"moving forward with the motion; moving forward with the pilot program is important; she was not on Council when the process began; she agrees with the community that it is past due; expressed support for first responders being present in times of crisis and for AFS and AFD joining as Alameda's team; stated AFS has been serving the City since 1969; the community has been supporting AFS for over 50 years; AFS has a presence in the community; no other provider knows and serves Alameda better than AFS; expressed support for the pilot program; stated the City has a head start; other cities are trying to figure out similar programs; the program might need more money at some point; the City can look at using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for the program; mental health needs have increased due to COVID-19; time is of the essence. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Vice Mayor Vella made recommendations; inquired whether the recommendations are included within the motion as direction to the City Manager. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the negative; stated that she does not want to back-pedal on the matter; expressed support for moving forward; stated that she articulated the matter would come back in one-year for re-evaluation; the Council should not get into the weeds; she is happy to consider friendly amendments to the motion. Councilmember Knox White stated that the program will be one and a half year into the duration before needed data is available to decide whether or not to continue with the program as-designed; it has taken four months to get to the point of having a program recommendation put before Council for consideration and negotiation; the matter will be back in front of Council within three months to begin the discussion for year two. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion with amendment; to include the option to extend; stated if the program is proceeding poorly, Council can stop the program; the option to extend provides Council the option not to continue; Council will cause a lot of work without much benefit in having the matter return after one year. Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a clause stating that the agreement may be mutually extended up to one year at the sole discretion of the City Manager; inquired whether the matter should come back to Council. Councilmember Knox White responded that he would like to give the authority to the City Manager. Councilmember Herrera Spencer accepted the friendly amendment to the motion. Councilmember Knox White expressed concern about stepping into the administrative realm in writing the contract; outlined the Mali Watkins incident; stated there has been a commitment to the community from the City Manager about being a leader in how the City responds to calls for service within one year; Council is being provided with a contract from City staff and AFS which encompasses that commitment; he would like Council to move forward; the program is a pilot and is iterative; recommended the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 2021 20",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf CityCouncil,2013-07-23,24,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City would be flexible. * (13-370) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the meeting continuing after 11:00 p.m. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog and Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Chen and Tam - 2. * Councilmember Tam stated that she likes the plan overall, including the revisions and suggestions; the Figure 7.A and 7.B cross sections are premature and should probably be eliminated, as well as the Zoning Designations which might be too confusing; said issues would be discussed at some point in the future; a phasing schedule or plan for the EIR, zoning, and infrastructure plan should be reviewed at the joint City Council and Planning Board meeting; the joint discussion should also address the disposition strategy and the various land which was conveyed at no cost. Councilmember Chen stated that he enjoyed reading the draft Guide; inquired whether a lawsuit from the Chinatown Merchant Association is pending, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded there is a settlement agreement. Councilmember Chen inquired whether the City is reaching out to the Chinatown community, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated staff met with the group and has another meeting scheduled; staff intends to continue having meetings to discuss the project and work with the group over the next six months and probably a lot longer. Councilmember Chen suggested outreaching to Asian organizations, such as the Alameda Chinese Club. Mayor Gilmore stated the pictures being used in reports have greatly improved over the last two years; reading the Guide is very enjoyable; Section 4.2 calls attention to the waterfront area; a limited number of restaurants in Alameda overlook the water, which is unfortunate; Alameda Point is the last waterfront area to be developed; getting the development right is essential; she is really happy to see a lot of attention and detail being paid to the waterfront area; the normal tendency is to rush development; however, a waterfront area should not be done quickly; the City should be very selective about what is done on the waterfront. Councilmember Daysog stated that he views Alameda Point through the lens of the recent national downturn; Alameda Point has to be more than a real estate deal; the City should consider opportunities which would create good paying jobs and economic and social justice angles; the built environment will have consequences which effect Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 July 23, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf CityCouncil,2018-04-17,24,"On the call for the question on the original motion, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (18-237) Recommendation to Review Staff's Analysis and Provide Direction on Possible Next Steps, including Community Outreach, Determining Potential Fiscal Impacts, and Returning with a Minimum Wage Ordinance. The Economic Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation. (18-238) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of continuing the meeting. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. *** The Economic Development Manager continued the presentation. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether other ordinances have an age threshold. The Project Planner responded in the negative; stated some ordinances have exceptions for job training programs, but there was not a lower minimum wage for minors. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the 87% Recreation and Park employees and 5% library employees are all minors. The Economic Development Manager responded in the negative; stated they are part- time employees; some are minors and some are not. The Acting City Manager stated most minors work in the Recreations and Park Department; there are very few minors at the Library; all full-time employees are not at minimum wage. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to find a way to survey residents who commute off island to go to a minimum wage job; community outreach could start with the Mayor's Economic Advisory Panel (EAP); the EAP could propose or tackle the issue and recommend an appropriate public engagement process. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City needs to do it right; regardubg the community outreach, not too many of EAP folks would have minimum wage job Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 April 17, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-17.pdf CityCouncil,2008-10-07,24,"Councilmember deHaan stated a better name would be one that is historical in nature. Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember deHaan; stated a temporary name should be used. Vice Mayor Tam stated that the motion should also include assurance that the TDM addresses what would happen on the other side of the [Park Street ] bridge. Councilmember deHaan stated Council continually discusses sales tax leakage. the area provides an opportunity to capture sales tax leakage. On the call of the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (08-413 CC/ARRA/08-53 CIC) Recommendation to approve the second amendment to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SCC Alameda Point LLC . Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave an overview of the proposed Second Amendment to the ENA, stating that in June 2008, SunCal Companies, Alameda Point's master developer, requested authorization from the ARRA to secure a financial partner to assist in carrying out their obligations under the ENA. Pursuant to the ENA, a transfer requires approval of CIC, CC, ARRA. On Aug. 19th, the ARRA considered the transfer to the new entity: Cal Land Ventures, a joint partnership between D.E. Shaw Real Estate Portfolio Twenty, LLC and WM Development Group, a wholly-owned affiliate of SunCal. Discussion of the transfer was based on the following core principles - 1) any new entity must retain SunCal as the day-to-day manager of the project, 2) SunCal should retain equity interest in the new venture, and 3) new entity should commit to invest funds necessary to meet obligations under the ENA. The City/ARRA/CIC felt it was critical to amend the ENA to address these core principles, because City entities are not parties to an operating agreement between joint venture partners. The 2nd amendment to the ENA provides Approval of ownership transfer, establishes new termination date of July 20, 2010 - this date reflects SunCal's intention to seek voter approval of its proposed land plan in Nov. 2009 and anticipates concluding DDA negotiations by July 20, 2010. The termination date can only be Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 5 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-06-15,24,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of program details. The City Manager stated Council has instructed staff to have a pilot program in place by the summer; noted both proposed programs can be in place within 30 to 60 days once approved; stated both proposed programs will have to operate and grow through the year and are intended to have a non-Police response; County rules about clearing 911 calls; protocols will have to be developed and approved at the County level for matters such as 5150 holds; currently, only Police Officers can determine a 5150 hold; both programs can eventually evolve and have less Police response; the pilot program is moving the City towards an alternative; neither program states Police are required to respond; however, Police might have to respond depending on protocols; both programs can highlight abilities and alternatives; the two recommended programs are the most viable options found for the timeline and capacity desired. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about Police response and program details from the Felton Institute. Al Gilbert, Felton Institute, stated the Felton Institute is one of the largest and most successful mental health providers in the Bay Area operating over 60 programs in five Northern California counties; Felton Institute offers specialty programs including: providing mental health services for the deaf population and early psychosis and schizophrenia bipolar programs in five counties; the program has intensive case management; all 5150 holds in San Francisco are released to the Felton Institute mental health staff; outlined the list of justice service programs; stated all four programs deal with re-entry and keeping people out of the jail system; San Francisco Suicide Prevention merged with the Felton Institute two years ago; the Suicide Prevention program served over 50,000 people last year; the Felton Institute responds to all mental health and emergency crisis calls for people that are suicidal in San Francisco; the Felton Institute manages five emergency hotlines 24 hours, 7 days a week; the Felton Institute is best prepared to respond to mental health issues and provides Police and Fire Department training; the Felton Institute has over 30 mental health programs, eight of which are social justice programs. Curtis Penn, Felton Institute, stated the training in the Fire Department is uniquely different from providing mental health services; the work currently performed in San Francisco under the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) program, helps train law enforcement around motivational interviewing, harm reduction modality, wellness recovery action plan, and thinking for change, in order to change the organizational culture of the Police Department; noted many Officers can be heavy-handed or punitive when dealing with individuals with mental health attributes; the Felton Institute LEAD program addresses the issue of providing organizational change to Police and allows a pre-booking process; the LEAD program diverts individuals to clinical case re-entry management and connects people to services to address immediate and long-term needs; the Felton Institute Felton Engagement Specialist Team (FEST) works with a Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2021 15",CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-02,24,"the first time there is a notice of a first rent increase, whether it is a year from now or 24 months from now. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a tenant does not want to accept a one year lease and would like to go month to month they would not be penalized, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired whether they would still need to pay the rent increase, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie inquired if month to month tenants would still be protected for the next year. The Community Development Director responded that month to month tenants would get the same protections like the ones provided in a lease. Councilmember Oddie stated tenants that do not have formal leases or have oral agreements would get standardized terms. Councilmember Daysog inquired if staff is suggesting the Glendale model, to which the Community Development Director responded in the negative. Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff's recommendation. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he would like it to stay the same and not have the provision apply to the existing tenants. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with staff's recommendation to offer the lease to existing tenants. Councilmember Daysog stated he needed more time. Councilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with staff recommendation. The Community Development Director stated a majority agree; she stated staff would capture the one time lease offer for prospective as well as in place tenants. Mayor Spencer clarified the in place tenants would be when there is a rent increase. The Community Development Director responded in place tenants with an existing lease would be offered a new lease 60 days before the current lease expires. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether it would be just once, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important to not have the tenant bear the cost Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2020-07-21,24,"(20-539) Recommendation to De-Name Jackson Park and Direct the City Manager to Remove the Park Sign. The Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation. In response to Councilmember Vella's inquiry regarding timing, the Recreation and Parks Director stated the matter should return no later than December; the matter could return to Council sooner than December pending the timing of approvals and committee presentations. Councilmember Oddie inquired who will comprise the committee. The Recreation and Parks Director responded the direction from the Commission is to create a diverse committee; noted that she has reached out to local organizations and associations to ensure diversity. Expressed support for renaming of Jackson Park; stated the decision is swift and easy; Council is acting quickly: Erin Fraser, Alameda. Expressed support; questioned the committee selection process; stated the selection process is critical for transparency; urged Council provide a clear selection process: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda. Expressed support for changing the name of Jackson Park; noted that she will not take her child to a park which marginalizes members of the community in any way; stated steps must be taken now to eliminate systemic racism in Alameda: Meredith Hoskin, Alameda. Expressed support for renaming Jackson Park; stated renaming is the right thing to do and is consistent with other recent actions from Council; this is another decision for Council to move the ball forward on greater equality: Josh Geyer, Alameda. Expressed support for renaming of Jackson Park; stated people need to be honest about the real history of America and Alameda: Alexia Arocha, Alameda. Expressed support for renaming Jackson Park and removing the park sign; urged Council to focus on Black, Indigenous, People Of Color (BIPOC) in the conversation; the matter is simple to push forward: Amy Chu, Alameda. Expressed support for a memorial to commemorate those killed under Jackson's rule; stated a memorial has not been discussed; urged Council to push for a memorial at future meetings: James Bergquist, Alameda. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 2 July 21, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf CityCouncil,2022-01-18,24,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 18, 2022- -5:00 P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:02 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 5:34 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.] Absent: None. Consent Calendar: (22-037) Recommendation to approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Nico Procos, Alameda Municipal Power General Manager, Erin Smith, Public Works Director, Alan Cohen, Assistant City Attorney, and Alan Harbottle, Senior Energy Resources Analyst, as Designated Negotiators with NextEra Energy Resources Related to Doolittle Landfill. Not heard. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (22-038) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code 54956.8); Property: 11-Acre Portion of the 33.2-Acre Doolittle Landfill Sire Located Northwest of the Intersection of Doolittle Drive and Harbor Bay Parkway. Not heard. (22-039) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9); Case Name: City of Alameda V. All Persons Interested in the Matter of the Issuance and Sale of One or More Series of Pension Obligation Bonds to Refinance Outstanding Obligations of the City of Alameda to the California Public Employees' Retirement Law, and All Proceedings Leading Thereto, Including the Adoption of a Resolution and Sale of Such Bonds, Alameda County Taxpayers' Association, Steve Slauson, and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Number: 21CV001157. (22-040) Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation, Initiation of Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, subsection (d)(4)); Number of Cases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action); Potential Defendant(s): Alameda Point Partners, LLC. (22-041) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8); Property: Alameda Point, Site A, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, and Louis Liss, Base Reuse Manager; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners, LLC; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 18, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-01,24,"The Public Works Director stated the matter is being fine-tuned. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that she assumes there would be a similar process with AC Transit. The Public Works Director stated a similar process would be done with AC Transit eventually. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated everything takes time; inquired whether there is enough time to gather information for the June 21st Planning Board Meeting. The Public Works Director responded the exact ferry terminal location is less important than the idea of what to have; stated the traffic model would not be that sensitive and the Board could see how to interrelate transit and land development density. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the ferry terminal would be somewhere in the seaplane lagoon. The Public Works Director responded the seaplane lagoon is being proposed; stated the proposal is a transit hub in the seaplane lagoon with a ferry terminal at the northeast corner; staff has had discussions with WETA regarding whether there will be enough ridership to bifurcate from Oakland and move the ferry to the seaplane lagoon; that he would like to discuss adding Harbor Bay; WETA only wants to take on new ferry service out of the seaplane lagoon if it is financially feasible and the ridership is there; otherwise, the ferry terminal would remain at the Main Street terminal; there would be shuttles from Alameda Point to the seaplane lagoon by the end of the 3rd phase. In response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry, the Public Works Director responded WETA's boats accommodate 119 and 159 passengers. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated other options need to be reviewed; other options are getting few and far between; today's generation will change employers many times; the vast majority of employees are in the south bay; Concord does not have any bus service; BART is available in Dublin but is limited in other areas; the City had three years of commitment; SunCal should have had the issue ironed out. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the matter should be sent back to the Planning Board, the majority of Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners responded in the negative. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated action is needed on the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 13 Community Improvement Commission June 1, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf CityCouncil,2018-03-06,24,"The City Manager stated the cost would be reimbursed. The Community Development Director concurred; stated the process will pay for itself. Councilmember Matarrese stated the interviewing should not be done by regular staff because they already have work to do. Vice Mayor Vella stated the issue will return to Council; she would want to know what consultant staff would hire. The Community Development Director responded the current cannabis consultants, SCI Consulting Group, would be used,. Councilmember Oddie stated that he feels it should be someone with a planning background or the Community Development Department (CDD), not SCI. The Community Development Director stated CDD covers Planning, Building and Economic Development. Councilmember Oddie stated CDD can bring in consultants for each. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is requesting law enforcement on the panel. Councilmember Oddie stated there are other options for the law enforcement area of expertise. Mayor Spencer stated clear direction needs to be provided. Vice Mayor Vella stated there are retired City employees with backgrounds in said areas and part time City staff in each area who could pick up extra hours. The Community Development Director stated staff can return with a five member panel composed of a range of City staff; there is not a majority support for a cannabis industry consultant; a rubric would be developed; the interview would receive less points; the same questions would be used for everyone and can be delivered ahead of time. Mayor Spencer inquired how staff will choose from the top proposals. The Community Development Director responded the balance would be placed on a waiting list. Mayor Spencer inquired whether only the one with the highest points would be selected. The Community Development Director responded the applicant may not successfully complete the permit process, so staff would then go to the next applicant on the waiting Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 March 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-03-06.pdf CityCouncil,2019-02-05,24,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 5, 2019- 7:02 P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 10:56 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (19-085) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring; Pursuant to Government Code § 54957; Title/description of positions to be filled: City Manager Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that direction was given to staff with no vote taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council February 5, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-02-05.pdf CityCouncil,2009-11-03,24,"Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the State take away is going to be a major concern. The Economic development Director stated everyone is frustrated by the situation; rules seem to change or get developed along the way with respect to State payments; a lawsuit has been filed regarding the legitimacy of taking money; the lawsuit would be appealed if successful; the money will sit in a bank account or trust and not be put to productive use in the community. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Joint Meeting at 11:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 3, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf CityCouncil,2005-05-17,24,"Councilmember deHaan stated Council has been alluding to the inability to live off of billets being attrited down; cuts might not be appropriate; the City needs to be realistic; the easy way, such as 5% cuts, cannot be used; service needs to be reviewed. Mayor Johnson stated that she inquired about purchasing goods and contracting locally; creation of central purchasing was a suggested way to do so; requested other ways to ensure as much money as possible is spent in Alameda and not generating tax revenues for other cities if the budget does not allow for the creation of central purchasing. The Acting City Manager responded staff is addressing the matter the budget was prepared prior to the request; the matter would return separate from the budget perhaps a position could be converted. Councilmember Daysog stated the proposed budget is fabulous, particularly the page reflecting salaries and benefits by department and the statement that: ""if adopted, there would be no impact on the General Fund reserve.' John Oldham, Acting President of the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) thanked the Acting City Manager, Finance Director and Human Resources Department for outlining what is happening with the City budget stated the MCEA membership is concerned about the proposed cuts and the impact on workload as jobs of association members are eliminated; employees are the foundation of what the City does, which is serve the citizens; the proposed budget requests that employees do more with less, which will erode the customer experience; that he started his career with the City in the Recreation and Park Department as a Park Director; the proposed budget eliminates the position that supervises park directors, which is a loss of a mentor who understands the operation; MCEA understands every position has a similar story and choices will be difficult; MCEA has had just over a week to review the budget and proposed reduction in force; MCEA would like to partner with the City to resolve the budget shortfall, while preserving services, program delivery and the quality of life for Alamedans requested Council to continue to review unfilled positions to reduce costs and take a closer look at revenues and expenditures before eliminating the positions of employees who have dutifully served the City for years; further stated prior to acting on the budget on June 7, MCEA is asking to work together to look at the whole picture before making a reduction in force; MCEA is asking for time to review the budget together so that everyone understands the impact of the reduction in force. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf CityCouncil,2008-06-17,24,"Department grant and fee revenues would be allocated to the Crossing Guard program; the proposed rescheduling results in approximately 40% cost reduction; inquired whether the $93,000 is expected to offset the reduction. The Police Chief responded $93,000 would help to recover the additional cost not budgeted for the next fiscal year. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what would be the reporting procedure for Fire Department overtime. The City Manager/Executive Director responded the Fire Department would be monitoring the issue on a daily basis; stated monthly or quarterly reports could be presented to Council. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when the Public Works Capital Improvement Program (CIP) would be addressed. The Public Works Director responded the CIP would be adopted with the budget. Councilmember/BoardMember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the deferred maintenance; stated the report shows medium priority projects total $66.5 million. The Public Works Director responded the deferred maintenance report will be coming to Council in approximately four weeks; Council will see the Pedestrian Plan later in the year; high, medium, and low priority projects were identified for the Pedestrian Plan; appropriations will be reviewed this coming year; the only Pedestrian Project included in the next two year CIP is for access across the Estuary. Mayor/Chai Johnson stated the concern is that $4 million was spent from the General Fund to catch up on some of the deferred maintenance and this year $1.5 million will be deferred. The Public Works Director stated all Measure B funds are being used; staff was successful in receiving Proposition 1B funds. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a funding stream has not been identified for other post employee benefits ; the proposed General Fund budget totals $75.4 million for the fiscal year; the accrued liability for post employment benefits was $75.4 million as of January 2007. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 14 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf CityCouncil,2010-05-04,24,"development and does not provide a larger variety of home opportunities for different lifestyles. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated in 2007, the idea was to plug SunCal into the Preliminary Design Concept (PDC) which includes a certain number of residential units; [the number of] units increased; inquired whether the numbers are driven by financials first, to which Mr. Brown responded said statement is fair. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated a financial balance is trying to be struck; 4,000 units are not for the sake of getting transit but are for financial return; that he would like some counter to staff's comments regarding revenue being overstated; real numbers need to be provided regarding a unreliable public financing stream via redevelopment funds; the next meeting should include a reminder of the milestones and explain where negotiations should be in terms of the milestones. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he does not doubt that the process is being driven by economics; inquired whether the PDC has been revisited, to which Mr. Brown responded that he has only seen the general write-ups. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated sixteen years of work has been done by various groups, consultants, and community meetings; economics and density drive the project; density has a play into ridership; ridership determines whether transit is viable or not; discussions have involved having amenities on the island to reduce vehicle trips off the island; the City does not want sales tax revenue to go off the island; a transit oriented development provides public and private amenities; Harbor Bay can barely get 40% fare box return on the ferry because of insufficient ridership. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the commercial aspect would be further studied; that he hopes the commercial aspect would include job replacement and not just involve retail; jobs were eliminated when the Base closed. Mr. Brown stated the design process is to look at demand and needs and not build more than demand; at the end of the day, a comprehensive, complete plan would be presented and would contain all required elements. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated having a transit oriented plan is so critical; the tube is the only on and off access for two-thirds of the island. (10-213 CC/ARRA/10-27 CIC) Escrow Account The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development gave a brief presentation. In response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry about whether SunCal will be asking for Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community 7 Improvement Commission May 4, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf CityCouncil,2006-09-05,24,"paper trail is needed for the file. Commissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge's had ample time to provide documentation. Chair Johnson stated the Rutledge's could continue to find ways to change circumstances in order to qualify. The Development Services Director stated the policy would need to be changed if applicants were allowed to change working status to become eligible. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether another home selection would occur, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner deHaan inquired when validation would be initiated for the next draw. The Development Services Director responded as soon as the placement is complete for the current homes. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the application process allows applicants to provide evidence of a change in status during the evaluation period, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Matarrese stated individuals have no control over furloughs and overtime cuts; the current process is valid and allows people to appeal; verification is missing from the Social Security Administration and Peralta Community College District. Commissioner Gilmore stated the overtime calculation was used to disqualify the Rutledge's; now opportunities are not available to make half of the excess income. Commissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge's would be eligible for the next housing program because the application would be different based upon adding a fifth person to the household. Chair Johnson stated allowing individuals to continually change information on the application is unfair to other applicants; applicants could tailor information to meet the qualifications The Development Services Director stated the Rutledge's income was reviewed for a five-member family and the income was still slightly above the threshold. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 5 September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf CityCouncil,2015-01-20,24,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING TUESDAY--JANUARY 20, 2015- 7:01 P.M. Mayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 1:06 a.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Agency Members Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor/Chair Spencer -5. - Absent: None. Oral Communications None. Agenda Items (15-067 CC/15-001 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the First Quarter Financial Report for the Period Ending September 30, 2014. (Continued to February 3, 2015) (15-068 CC/15-002 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Audited Financial Statements and Compliance Reports. The Interim Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember/Agency Member Daysog inquired whether the way in which the report was prepared is substantially different than past reports. Grace Zhang, Maze and Associates, responded in the negative; stated reporting has been consistent. Mayor/Chair Spencer stated the presentation was not online. The Assistant City Manager stated the presentation is a summary and was not posted online. Mayor/Chair Spencer stated that she prefers presentations be included in the packet so Council may see them in advance. Vice Mayor/Agency member Matarrese stated there is revenue and expense information included in the presentation that was not in the staff report. The Interim Finance Director explained staff became aware of the information as the Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission January 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-20.pdf CityCouncil,2008-05-06,24,"Housing. The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam stated the staff report indicated that the City allowed a very limited number of adjustable, but amortizing loans that could not go negative for the Bayport project; inquired whether there have been any poor experiences with the adjustable loans. The Development Services Director responded in the negative. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he appreciates staff brining the item forward; there is no action at the State or federal level. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the fact that the City has not had any foreclosures is indicative of the rational, high quality way the City has addressed the issue. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 3 Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners May 6, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf CityCouncil,2017-04-07,24,"objectively reviewed is worth the money. The Community Development Director inquired how the Council might want to handle single family units, such as having the Hearing Officer make a non-binding decision; stated direction on exempt versus non-exempt units might be helpful. Mayor Spencer stated that she would be concerned about not offering relief to tenants in single family homes; she wants protection for all tenants. Councilmember Matarrese stated rather than the Council providing feedback, the consultant should analyze the distinctions and weigh the pros and cons; said information is what he expects from the consultant. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated although rent control cannot apply to Costa Hawkins units, there is value in having mediation for said cases. Model Lease Councilmember Oddie inquired whether staff is clear on the model lease, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff will look into a model lease. Councilmember Oddie stated the process might be less expensive if there is a model lease. The City Manager stated a number of landlords have leases particular to their property; stated rather than having a model lease, there could be model lease provisions since the intent is education; all of the details of a lease would not need to be included. The Community Development Director concurred; stated there could be a model lease addendum similar to what was created for the City's smoking ordinance. Vice Mayor Vella stated the City of Davis prepared a model lease, which is a good way of ensuring Council's intent is correctly interpreted; she would want to see model lease provisions because there were interpretation issues during the past year. The Community Development Director summarized staff's objectives: 1) craft a draft ordinance dealing with administrative issues that would return to Council on May 16th; 2) research and study just cause evictions and a FMR formula for relocation benefits; 3) commission a third-party study on the RRAC process; and 4) work on model lease provisions. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the model lease would be an addendum, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Continued April 4, 2017 Meeting Alameda City Council 24 April 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf CityCouncil,2015-12-15,24,"534 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING TUESDAY--DECEMBER 15, 2015- -6:59 P.M. Mayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 7:08 p.m. A member of Boy Scout Troup 2 led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Agency Members Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor/Chair Spencer - 5. Absent: None. Oral Communications None. Consent Calendar Councilmember/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor/Agency Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*15-724 CC/15-016 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Treasury Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2015. Accepted. (*15-725 CC/15-017 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the First Quarter Financial Report for the Period Ending September 30, 2015. Accepted. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission March 17, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,24,da,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-03-30,24,"with the Alameda Health Care District; stated there is a proactive tone in keeping Alameda Hospital open; the Board of Alameda Health Care District has voted to allocate $250,000 for the upcoming fiscal year for community paramedicine; discussed an update from Dr. Mini Swift. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Continued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 March 30, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2017-04-12,24,"ITEM 2-B COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES MEETING MINUTES OF Wednesday, April 12, 2017 6:30 p.m. Beth Kenny: Yes. Arnold Brillinger: I would suggest that or my motion says that we would adopt these events. In another time we could have another motion to say, ""Hey we don't want to be part of such and such event, but this one.' Then it's part of the minutes SO that everyone knows that these are the events that they will see somebody from CDI or the Commission on Disability. Kerry Parker: I just want to offer some advice as an event planner. Right now I'm getting ready to participate in the Earth Day Festival on April 22, 10:00 to 3:00. I hope to see all of you there. But part of event planning for us: I have a calendar of events that includes Coastal Cleanup Day and other such environmental events. Every year we have to look at them again to see, okay they stay on our calendar so I agree that maybe these should be adopted into the calendar, but you go over each of them again like is this going to be a year that we do this? You figure out who is available, and do we have enough money, and do we have everything we need for this event? So maybe that instead of saying, ""Yes we're going to do this forever,"" that you adopt this as kind of a good framework for your calendar and next year we update it again with the new dates and whatever is available for that year. Arnold Brillinger: Okay then I make a motion, because no one seconded the other one anyway. So that's good. I make a motion that we adopt this for this year and that these are the events. Also there is, like Alameda Hospital will have a wellness fair or whatever they have, a health fair. I think that we as a resource ought to be there also. Beth Kenny: So let's start with the motion to accept these events for 2017 and keep them on the schedule to be reviewed annually. Can we start with that one? Because I'll second that one. Arnold Brillinger: A good idea. Beth Kenny: All in favor? All: Aye. Beth Kenny: Anyone opposed? The ayes have it. The second thing you were saying about the hospital and other resource fairs that come up. There are a lot of other resource fairs out there, there are a lot of different places that we could be going. Not even just in the city, but countywide. I think that that's something that we're looking towards the event committee to figure out where those things might come and which we should be actively pursuing. But yes this is not a comprehensive list that we can't add anything to. We can always add something. Is there anything else from the Arnold Brillinger: Do we need to take a vote if we add a motion and a second? Beth Kenny: A vote? Arnold Brillinger: Did we vote like aye or nay? Beth Kenny: For? 05/24/17 Page 24 of 29",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2017-04-12.pdf CityCouncil,2020-06-16,24,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (20-434) Vice Mayor Knox White expressed gratitude for the budget process. (20-435) Councilmember Daysog encouraged visiting the farm near Target at Alameda Landing. (20-436) Councilmember Oddie expressed support for outcome-based budgeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:03 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 16, 2020 22",CityCouncil/2020-06-16.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-05,24,"The City Manager stated staff can look into the strategy. Councilmember Oddie stated 49 of the applicants are restaurants; noted all residents can apply for the Great Plates State project; expressed support for City restaurants benefitting from the program and putting more money into the program. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether applicants are being asked about other forms of assistance they have applied for; inquired whether applicants are solely relying on City grant funds; noted some restaurants have stayed open for take-out and delivery; inquired whether the businesses open status could be a funding consideration; stated some consideration should be given to businesses trying to keep employees on staff and serve the community; inquired whether said considerations can be factored into the process. The Economic Development Manager responded staff is requesting applicants apply for loans, grants and other program information as part of their application; staff is not factoring whether a restaurant is open; noted there are many considerations for a restaurant to open or not open; stated applicants are being requested to certify under penalty of perjury that they plan to open after the shelter in place order; staff is factoring whether the business projects a closure within six months after reopening. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the enforcement for such assurances. The Economic Development Manager responded a lien could be placed. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether the process has been approved by the City Attorney's office, to which the Economic Development Manager responded in the negative. Councilmember Vella inquired whether it is possible to weigh a restaurant considering closure or bankruptcy to ensure funds are put toward keeping businesses afloat; inquired the application contents to ensure accurate information. The Economic Development Manager responded in the negative; stated staff is not asking whether additional businesses are owned; noted staff is asking whether or not the applicant has been in business for longer than one year. Councilmember Vella inquired whether businesses younger than one year are ineligible. The Economic Development Manager responded the businesses are eligible, but staff will know the age of the business. Councilmember Vella inquired how the 20% loss will be calculated. The Economic Development Manager responded the applicants will use the month of Special Meeting Alameda City Council 3 May 05, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-05.pdf CityCouncil,2022-02-15,24,"Urged Council pause the negotiations and reconsider the equity argument that many have made; stated the practice of pool memberships is not inclusive or accessible; expressed support for the use of the pools and volunteerism; stated the pools should be open to everyone or shut down: Seth Marbin, Alameda. Stated that he is a loyal ASPA member; ASPA needs guidance in the pursuit of safety and membership; ASPA is a great model; more equity and access needs to be addressed; expressed support for the City holding quarterly meetings to provide information to members and allow for questions: Marshall Dortch, ASPA and Alameda Gators. Stated in response to the concerns for safety, ASPA has insurance; ASPA has remained insurable; discussed lifeguard qualifications; stated there is room for improvement in the courses; expressed support for the pools continuing with improved operations: Randall Miller, ASPA. Provided a reading excerpt from ""The Sum of Us:"" Morgan Bellinger, Alameda. Urged Council to renew the lease with ASPA; stated the City can do a better job of advertising available pools to the public; discussed access differences between ASPA and other Alameda pools; stated the membership fees are economical for families; expressed support for scholarship funds to make memberships affordable: Therese Hall, Alameda. Stated more needs to be done to ensure swimming is more accessible for all; expressed support for the City being a partner with ASPA; stated ASPA is a co-op and is open and accessible; the City can help with advertising; urged the City to partner with ASPA; stated the hours are focused on youth swimming: Pam Luo, ASPA. Vice Mayor Vella stated there are equity issues with the matter; discussed her previous use of the pools; noted the ASPA website and pool site has little information posted; expressed concern about the access to the pools being during defined and limited periods of time; stated it is odd to discuss membership on a public resource; expressed concern about safety aspects and little City oversight; expressed support for finding ways to expand public access, for clear information being available and for moving away from the membership model; stated that she appreciates the volunteerism and co-op process; questioned whether there is a reason the City cannot move forward with the same sentiment in opening up the pools to all; stated there is an equity issue with membership and accessibility; she would like to see the pools expanded and opened up to the neighborhood without a membership for access. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff is recommending Council provide the authority to negotiate a short-term lease as opposed to entering into an operating agreement; more access to pools and swimming is needed; expressed support a creative and flexible approach to the matter; stated a few items are non-negotiable, including lifeguards; questioned the amount of lifeguards needed; stated pools are required to have insurance; State law requires trained, certified lifeguards be on site; lifeguards should be included as a term of the lease; questioned the consequences of lease terms not being met; stated there are short-comings and safety must be first; expressed support for an automated, online registration system; stated automated systems are a way to ensure the pool is being used to its maximum capacity; discussed costs being a barrier to access; stated many people do not have the $400 membership fee saved; questioned whether there is a way for membership not to be paid in a lump sum; and whether the pool can be made available for people that wish to swim on a one-time or drop-in basis; stated the age Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 15, 2022 22",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf CityCouncil,2009-10-20,24,"The Planning Services Manager responded staff has been working with the Collin's representatives on a wide range of issues; stated some initial requests have been made for concessions which are not acceptable, such as waiving all fees; the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is underway. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a formalized process is needed to determine whether or not a project is within the density bonus ordinance based upon the economics of the project. The Planning Services Manager stated staff would have to make a recommendation to the Planning Board regarding the project's concessions, and incentives. Mayor/Chair stated the first determination should be whether the project qualifies under the density bonus ordinance. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated the issue seems to be open ended in the decision processi controls are needed so that staff ensure consistent decisions are made. Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how a density bonus project would be handled. The Planning Services Manager responded an applicant would request a meeting with staff to negotiate and review exceptions that would be considered; staff would not approve an applicant's request for a density bonus plus being twenty-five or thirty feet above the height limit; a more reasonable request would be ten feet over the height limit. Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what would happen after the negotiation process. The Planning Services Manager responded plans would be developed and submitted; stated the process is similar to variance requests. Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated the noticing should state that the applicant is requesting a density bonus so that everyone is aware that the project is different; developers should be aware that there would be heightened scrutiny within the community. The Planning Services Manager stated the Council/Commission seems to want some type of pre-application process. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf CityCouncil,2017-09-05,24,"388 Amended and Restated Lease Agreement with Mr. Hi Chi Chen and Mrs. Lena Muy Chiv, a Married Couple, dba Hometown Donuts for 1930 Main Street; and (17-519A) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Grant of Non-Exclusive Easement and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of Grant of Non-Exclusive Easement to Alameda Boys & Girls Club (ABGC) and Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) for Access and Maintenance. Not heard. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (17-520) Update on Tracking of Council Referrals. Not heard. (17-521) The City Manager stated one Firefighter and one Police Officer from the City of Alameda have gone to assist with Hurricane Harvey; the City did not apply for the Justice Assistance Grant for funds for Police Department equipment due to the application having requirements to give information about immigrant citizens to the federal government; items that are going on at the federal level which might impact the City: the Executive Order that prohibited military equipment to be sold to local Police Departments has been rescinded; the federal regulations to manage flood control have been revoked; a bill has been designed to drastically cut illegal immigration and revise the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to allow immigrant children to have citizen status in the future. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (17-522) Consider Directing Staff to Explore Offering Free Public WiFi Throughout the City. Not heard. (Mayor Spencer) (17-523) Consider: 1) Adoption of Resolution Condemning the Increased Incidents of Bias, Prejudice, Discrimination, Violence and Anti-Semitism; and 2) Direct Staff to Provide a Status Update on Hate Crime Training and Possible Training of Community Members; and Direct the City Manager to Provide Periodic Reports to Council on Hate Crimes. Not heard. (Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Oddie) COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (17-524) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) and Public Art Commission (PAC). Mayor Spencer nominated Lynn Jones and Norman Sanchez to the Historical Advisory Board and Mark Farrell to the Public Art Commission. (17-525) Mayor Spencer stated that she signed a letter against bias, discrimination and anti-Semitism with the U.S. Mayor's Conference; the Temple has an open house on Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-20,23,"$28 million is likely not the correct amount to allocate; the analysis of the sale will drive the funding amounts; $20 million is too high for the project; dedicating so much of the ARPA funds toward one project is not going to fly; ; the project's proximity to amenities makes the Marina Village Inn an asset; Council should not miss the opportunity; expressed concern about groundwater; stated groundwater is something that cuts across the City; expressed support for taking advantage of the storm water system. Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for spending ARPA funding as needed based off assessments for the Marina Village Inn; stated the project is a good use of funds; equity is about helping those who need the most; there will be times when significant amounts of resources will be used in order to have an impact on those who need help; Council can do something positive with the project; Council has addressed issues related to budget shortages; further cuts should not be made to services; expressed support for ensuring the budget is being taken care of; expressed concern about additional budget cuts; stated that she would like to find a way to maximize the use of ARPA funds for housing needs; questioned other ways to maximize and assist with housing needs; stated matters are being discussed at the State level, including UBI; there will be multiple layers of assistance coming to families and those in need; Council can make the greatest impact using ARPA funds for housing. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should think big; ARPA funds have been described as a once in a lifetime opportunity; outlined the staff report; stated that she agrees with using ARPA funds to purchase the Marina Village Inn; however, not using $20 million; different funding sourcs will be incorporated; in addition to federal funding, there will be money coming in from the State and County which can be used towards operating costs; outlined a meeting with Alameda Justice Alliance, Transform Alameda and Alameda Renters Coalition; expressed support for a Alameda Hospital program similar to the White Bird Clinic, which provides mental health and substance abuse programs and acts as a respite day center for those needing to get off the street; participants do not need to be admitted or stay overnight; the City Manager is working with similarly sized neighboring cities to find funding mechanisms; there is exciting potential for the City to provide the program and alternative services; the program will help Alameda Hospital, residents and business centers; there is a pot of money for pilot programs, such as UBI; funding will be directed towards youth exiting the foster care system; outlined the foster care exit process; stated UBI can provide assistance; funding can also be used for pregnant mothers within specific income categories; she supports investments being made for youths; outlined a Mayor's Conference discussion of a Stockton's UBI pilot program; stated that she is intrigued by the idea of a community land trust; the City of Oakland has provided a community land trust along with other cities; the opportunity arises when distressed or foreclosed property is able to be purchased by the City and used for affordable housing; she is interested in a community resiliency hub and would like to receive further information; inquired whether staff has enough direction from Council. The City Manager stated sufficient direction has been provided; however, a specific motion would be helpful. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 16",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,23,"accents; 2. The header courses would be corrected; 3. A lighting consultant would be utilized; 4. A landscaping plan would be included, and returned to the Planning Board. AYES - 4 (Kohlstrand, McNamara absent); NOES - 1 (Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: President Cunningham advised that a letter from Sarah [Unavolta], commenting that she was not in favor of Item 8-A. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATION: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC. (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that their last meeting was held the previous week. Staff will make a presentation before the Planning Board to discuss the future of the project, and what kind of regular review the Board would like. b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Specific Plan (Vice President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Board Member Piziali advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting. d. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board Member Mariani). Board Member Mariani advised that there was nothing new to report since the last meeting. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Ms. Eliason advised that the preliminary concept for Alameda Point was distributed to the Board members. There will be a meeting on that subject in July. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Paul Benoit, Interim Secretary Planning Board Minutes Page 23 June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf CityCouncil,2007-01-16,23,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the historic theater completion timeline is March or April 2008. The Development Manager responded in the negative; stated November 2007 is the anticipated completion date. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the layout area would be a problem once the Cineplex construction starts. The Development Manager responded staff is meeting with Overaa and the developer to coordinate a number of issues; stated the site is tight ; Overaa is prepared to deal with the issues the trailers should be removed from the Cineplex site by the end of the month; Overaa could utilize some unfinished space in the historic theater mezzanine area; staff would continue to coordinate with Overaa on an on-going basis. Commissioner Matarrese requested that any Cineplex design changes come back to Council; stated discretionary decisions should not be made. Commissioner deHaan stated priorities have not been set. Chair Johnson called the public speakers. Richard W. Rutter, Alameda, outlined concerns with the value- engineered changes itemized in Attachment 3. Christopher Buckley, Alameda, outlined some parking garage ""at risk"" details. Chair Johnson inquired when decisions need to be made on the items outlined by Mr. Buckley. The Development Manager responded the canopy and blade sign prices are secured for six months in addition to some items that may be added later. Chair Johnson inquired whether fund raising opportunities are possible. The Development Manager responded absolutely; stated private funding could be used for the mural underneath the mezzanine wall. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether prices are secured for six months from now. The Development Manager responded prices are secured for six months Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 3 January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-24,23,"Councilmember Oddie stated the Boys and Girls Club is on the map; having it either way does not cause anything to change since there is not a Commercial (C) zone. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Acting City Manager stated the charter schools next to the Boys and Girls club causes an automatic 1,000 foot buffer. The Economic Development Manager inquired whether off-campus after-school programs and tutorial/learning centers should not be considered schools. Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer stated the buffer should be 600 feet and the uses should not be considered a school. Vice Mayor Vella stated the uses are not a school; she is fine with a 600 foot buffer. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated businesses can change; places where unaccompanied children go should have a 1,000 foot buffer; areas where children are supervised could have 600 feet or no buffer. The Economic Development Manager stated said issue would be addressed next. Mayor Spencer stated some Councilmembers are out of time; answers should be kept as short as possible. The Economic Development Director inquired whether learning centers should be considered a sensitive use; stated there would be no buffer zone if learning centers are not considered a sensitive use. Vice Mayor Vella inquired how after-school program is defined, to which the Economic Development Director responded the matter is complicated; stated there is not a State registry. Councilmember Oddie expressed support for not having a buffer zone. Vice Mayor Vella stated an after-school program differs from tutorial/learning centers; she does not want to create more gray areas. Mayor Spencer inquired how far dispensaries have to be from libraries, grocery stores and fast food restaurants, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded currently, there is no buffer. Mayor Spencer stated children walk to libraries, grocery stores and fast food restaurants by themselves all the time; encouraged parents to educate their children. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Vice Mayor Vella stated there should be no Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 19 July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf PlanningBoard,2012-03-12,23,"Ms. Ott stated it is not set in stone in the ordinance. Vice President Burton exclaimed they shouldn't set the number and the smart thing to say what type of densities will go into the areas. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Thomas mentioned that the executive summary of the Urban Land Institute's report is on the City's website. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: President Zuppan thanked Board member Ezzy Ashcraft and Board member Autorino for their service. 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. 13. ADJOURNMENT: 11:19 PM Approved Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 23 March 12, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf CityCouncil,2017-10-03,23,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if someone from City staff attends WETA board meetings, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she concurs with the referral brought by Councilmember Oddie; suggested having the workshop at the Harbor Bay Community Center. Vice Mayor Vella stated if the workshop is done at Harbor Bay Community Center she would also like a workshop held on the West End; suggested if a joint meeting is done, the workshop should be agendized to inform people what time the item will be discussed. Mayor Spencer clarified if there are two different sites there would be two different agendas; inquired when the workshop will be held. The City Manager responded after mid-January. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would like the workshop to occur in December before the matter returns to Council in mid-January. The City Manager responded that the issue would be trying to get the other agency staff to attend. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if WETA could poll ferry riders to see when they would want the meeting to be held. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of directing staff to conduct a workshop and to expand the workshop, as Councilmember Matarrese suggested, to include more than just the Harbor Bay ferry. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, with the recognition that the direction is important but not urgent. The City Manager inquired whether Council would like to conduct the survey to find the best time for residents, to which Council concurred. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (17-596) Mayor Spencer nominated Penny Cozad for appointment to the Planning Board. (17-597) Vice Mayor Vella stated there is a lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) training for the remediation and removal of lead paint on pre-1978 homes Saturday in Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf CityCouncil,2012-06-19,23,"[Absent: Vice Mayor Bonta - 1.] Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the property owner needs to go forward with the work to allow a tenant to move in, to which Mr. Cederborg responded in the affirmative. The Chief Building Official stated once the lien has been filed, the $5,000 goes away and permit fees could be discussed. Mayor Gilmore stated placing a lien on the property wipes the slate clean and allows the property owners to obtain the permits needed. The City Manager stated the property is out of compliance; staff can be directed to work with the property owner to get into compliance; the $5,000 lien is not operative now. Mayor Gilmore stated placing the lien would allow the property owner to go back to court and explain there was misrepresentation.",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf CityCouncil,2019-03-19,23,"the previous VLF given up for property tax. The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the State previously took VLF's away from cities, but increased the property tax to cover the amount; continued the Power Point presentation. Councilmember Vella inquired the impact of the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) new hires under safety departments. The Finance Director responded there are only 25 PEPRA employees. In response to Councilmember Vella's inquiry regarding the number of vacancies, the Fire Chief stated there are currently 11 sworn vacancies and one civilian vacancy in the Fire Department. The Human Resources Director responded there are approximately 10 vacancies in the Police Department. Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about the increase in the miscellaneous retirement formula; stated that he would like to know more about the portion of reserves above 25% that is dedicated to Other Oost-Employment Benefits (OPEB) and retirement; inquired whether vacancies are driving up reserves. The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated each department is trying to hire staff. Councilmember Daysog stated to the extent that departments are not hiring, there are not actual dollars being expended causing the revenue side to be more than the expenditures side. The Finance Director stated the revenue will not repeat in the following year. Councilmember Daysog stated some departments have had vacancies for multiple years; expressed concern with the formula for excess reserves beyond 25%. Vice Mayor Knox White requested clarification on the issue raised by Councilmember Daysog. Councilmember Daysog outlined his reasoning for the formulaic issue calculating excess reserves beyond 25%. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands Councilmember Daysog's concern; discussed her role in Council's use of budget surplus; stated Council established 25% as a good reserve to have; Council has a growing OPEB and CalPERS liability and a moral obligation to pay retirees; that she expects a recession in the future; the City has saved over $1 million per year; the City needs to be extremely careful when adding to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 19 March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf GolfCommission,2018-02-15,23,"Corica Golf 2018 PREVIEW Annual Plan Clubhouse Improvements: Carried over from 2017, Clubhouse plans consist of updating men's and women's restrooms, golf shop and exterior clubhouse re-facing/painting. Golf shop to be completed March followed by restrooms and clubhouse. Club Branding (Refresh): New signage and merchandise is planned for Property as part of the rebranding for Corica. a JIM'S ON PARK THE COURSE UNF 19",GolfCommission/2018-02-15.pdf CityCouncil,2022-03-01,23,"ordinance], including the associated technical corrections. Councilmember Knox White proposed a friendly amendment which includes a 60 day notice for banked AGA after the end of the local emergency. Councilmember Daysog stated the notice is not currently included in the staff recommendation; expressed support for hearing from other Councilmembers. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the 60 day notice would mean landlords have to wait 60 days to use the banked increase; whether a landlord waiting until the end of the local emergency could increase by 2.7% plus the next banked increase. Councilmember Knox White responded landlords would bank the 2.7% and use the next AGA, plus up to 3% of the bank; the 2.7% would not be added to the increase and would go into the bank. The City Attorney concurred with Councilmember Knox White. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the total amount able to increase would be the 3% plus AGA, to which Councilmember Knox white responded in the affirmative. Mr. Katz stated the most a landlord could impose at any given time would be the AGA at the time, plus 3% banked increase. Councilmember Daysog outlined Councilmember Knox White's proposed motion amendment; inquired whether the process of the banked amount does not happen simultaneously, that the amount is increased 60 days later if there is an AGA rent increase, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the negative. The City Attorney stated there are a number of banking rules which remain in effect and create limitations on rent increases; one limitation is that there can only be a rent increase every 12 months; a landlord increasing rent in July prior to the pandemic ending, cannot increase rent again within 60 days of the pandemic ending; a landlord cannot increase rent twice within 12 months; landlords will have to wait until the 12 months is up before implementing another rent increase plus AGA. Councilmember Daysog inquired the reason for having the 60 day notice for banked increases. Councilmember Knox White responded a 60 day notice starts putting the use of the AGA out far enough that there is encouragement for landlords to use the 2.7% rent increase rather than sitting on a rent increase for months to utilize 5% plus 3%; the proposal encourages a phased in approach. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding banked increases, Councilmember Knox White stated the 60 day notice pushes the increase out and banking still cannot be used until the end of the emergency. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of staff's recommendation [introduction of the ordinance]. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2022 21",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf CityCouncil,2019-07-16,23,"by the policy and the City Manager is allowing for sufficient time to return within 6 months. Councilmember Daysog stated something historic has happened and Council is being asked to change policy. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft clarified that Council has no policy and is being asked to implement new policy. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he intends to adopt a policy; the Grand Jury does not direct and cannot compel Council to adopt a policy; the Grand Jury has recommended a policy be adopted and Council's response is it intends to adopt a policy; if there are delays in adopting policy, Council will report back to the Grand Jury; expressed support for the current language. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of Recommendation 19-3 and returning 4 months from the meeting for Council discussion. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.] Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined Recommendation 19-4. Vice Mayor expressed support for option 2; stated that he would like to change the term ""expects"" to ""will."" The City Manager expressed concern for the timeline of the Councilmember handbook; stated the document could be lengthy; expressed support for a timeline of one-year for the second part of the recommendation and 6 months for the first part. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the new language for the response. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like a comma after conduct. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the first line should read: ""these recommendations have not been implemented."" Vice Mayor Knox White clarified the recommendation is singular itself. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of Recommendation 19-4. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.] Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the entire letter. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf CityCouncil,2015-01-21,23,"Councilmember Oddie stated that he also has a few concerns; the open house is not a bad idea; however, Council gave staff a lot of work today and yesterday; he is not sure he wants to give staff more work tonight; if Council asks staff to do something, staff are will give 110%, which takes a generous amount of effort; perhaps the matter would be tabled and brought back in the summer time; the first discussion point is submission of matters, which refers to a Municipal Code section; order of business, rules of order, start time and length of meetings, and continuation of items also refer to Municipal Code sections; teleconferencing refers to the Government Code Brown Act; the public does not have notice if Council is going to consider changes; there is not an opportunity to hear staff's in depth analysis of impacts; two readings are required to change an ordinance; that he is not sure the intended outcome of tonight's meeting. Mayor Spencer responded that she thinks reviewing the matters is important so the Council knows the process, such as for referrals; today, Council went through the referral process, which was not necessarily as clean as it could have been; she would like to review how to hold meetings under the Brown Act and the exact protocol; from the School Board, she is used to calling an agenda item, having a staff presentation, clarifying questions, public comment, discussion, and then the motion, which is the way she has been running meetings. Councilmember Oddie stated the Council has its own procedures; the School Board's procedures are different; Mayor Spencer's comment about being able to explain a no vote is in the School Board procedures, not Council procedures. Councilmember Daysog stated the agenda item seems appropriate and does not have any specific actions that alter any of the ordinances; his interpretation of what Mayor Spencer is seeking to do is have a conversation about the submittal of matters, not saying Council is going to alter the ordinance tonight, rather Council is going to discuss it; Council is not going to take specific actions to alter anything; Council is not precluded from having such discussions; he is fine with the idea of a future open house. Mayor Spencer stated that she is happy to bring the open house back as a referral; having this conversation is important. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Mayor Spencer that having the conversation is important; stated that she is concerned members of the public might like to be included in the conversation; inquired whether Mayor Spencer would consider tabling the matter to the next Council meeting; stated the agenda for the first meeting in February is still light; there would be time for a staff report to be generated with more information. The City Clerk noted the February 3, 2015 meeting packet would be published tomorrow. Councilmember Daysog stated the matter is properly described in the very first background sentence: the Mayor is requesting to give the new Council and members of Special Meeting Alameda City Council 23 January 21, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf CityCouncil,2021-10-19,23,"there is still the risk of whether or not now is the correct time to invest, regardless of the source of money; Council must decide whether now is the right time to invest; outlined various risk assessments; stated the most difficult part of POBs is that municipalities are not necessarily designed to take on the inherent equity risks; when all bonds changed over from fixed income investments to equities and fixed income, everyone was looking for gain to be received; equities are a rollercoaster ride; risk free options do not come with the gain of equities; the pension component adds to the equity risks and occurs with CalPERS every day; the liability will be something to live with; the risk is difficult to address; however, Council can follow systematic methods; the market timing is the primary risk to deal with. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated while considering the matter, Council must simultaneously be looking at ways to keep the City's pension obligations from increasing unreasonably; discussed hiring contractors versus full-time benefitted employees and using Code Compliance Officers for inspections instead of Firefighters; stated that she looks to the City Manager to help manage pension obligations; Council cannot keep digging out of a hole with one shovel while filling with another; when staff are added, the City has to pay a long-term obligation long after the current Council. Councilmember Daysog stated Council and residents need to understand the magnitude of the decision; Council is considering issuing a POB for roughly $298 million to cover unfunded liabilities; when the interest is added, the actual amount comes out to roughly $420 million; he understands the net present value based on the discount rate; Council is considering the possibility of $420 million; he is focusing on four areas of the matter. (21-663) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider new items after 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the first two referrals. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3. Councilmember Knox White inquired whether Council Communications will still be able to be heard. The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated Council must consider hearing new, regular, agenda items after 11:00 p.m., not the agenda sections of Oral, Council and City Manager Communications. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council would still hear Oral and Council Communications, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Knox White stated the remaining regular agenda item being discussed does not need a motion to continue. The City Clerk stated the remaining Consent Calendar item related to the Cultivate agreement is outstanding due to being moved to the end of the Regular Agenda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 19, 2021 22",CityCouncil/2021-10-19.pdf CityCouncil,2021-03-16,23,"Vice Mayor Vella requested the motion be amended to direct staff to look at adding AB 1400 to the City's Legislative Priorities; stated that she would specifically like to call out AB 1400; a bill has been proposed by Assemblymember Chiu; she would like the motion to direct staff to report back to Council on additional pending legislation relative to traffic; she would like to hear about the regional model and what people are shifting to that does not involve armed Officers. In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding which Assemblymember Chiu bill, Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is not necessarily supportive; it is AB 550 regarding using cameras to do automated traffic control; she would like a report back on non-armed options; stated that she would second the motion with the addition. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is happy to add the direction to the motion; that his intent was not to have only one motion; rather than piling on, there can be additional motions on other items. Councilmember Daysog stated the staff report that returns to Council should be fully detailed about the level of service needed to achieve the type of impact that the Council expects and the associated funding, as well as anything less that is necessary due to limited funding; the staff report should have programs that will achieve optimum success regardless of funding; City Council should not tell the Police what and how to post things on social media; what the Accountability Commission will be should not be prescribed; a key element should be to address the main issues that brought the City to this point, but he is not convinced it needs to be completely about that; he will support the motion, but he has his points of view; Police need to carry guns and be prepared. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the social media post in the report was troubling; noted a picture of a person arrested, but not convicted was posted on the Police social media page; stated public help might be needed to locate someone who allegedly committed a crime, but it is of questionable value to post a photo between arrest and before trial. Councilmember Daysog stated that he agrees, but the matter is a department head issue. Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the motion be repeated; stated staff should share the hourly rates and benefits of the Block by Block program employees; she wants to ensure people are being paid appropriately. Councilmember Knox White stated the motion is to adopt the first seven items in the Steering Committee Report: 1) the Citizens' Police Accountability Commission, which is staff work to determine what it would look like and bring it back to Council for further discussion and direction; 2) shift responsibility for responding to mental health crisis from the Police Department to other City or County programs as recommended, including options reflected in the conversation tonight; 3) initiating a campaign to educate the public on Who to Call; 4) he did not ask for the protocols for APD social media to come back to Council, but until there are clear social media protocols and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 March 16, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-02-06,23,"(18-076) Janet Gibson, ACT, stated ACT has been advocating for a senior housing with progressive assistance; discussed using developer impact fees for affordable housing and rental assistance. COUNCIL REFERRALS (18-077) Update on Tracking of Council Direction through the Referral Process. (18-078) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Information on the Citywide Dockless Bike Sharing Program and Return to Council with Additional Safety Requirements. Not heard. (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella) (18-079) Consider Banning Motorized Commercial Vehicles, Including Robotic Commercial Vehicles, from Sidewalks and Commercial Drone Aircraft Used for Deliveries. Not heard. (Councilmember Matarrese) COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (18-080) Councilmember Oddie provided information on StopWaste.org. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:37 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 6, 2018 21",CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf CityCouncil,2018-01-16,23,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella would like that to be a friendly amendment to the motion, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the motion. Vice Mayor Vella clarified that she does not want to look at the new fee structure for the next year without knowing what Council could be considering relative to administration of the fee. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is requesting to know said information by the spring, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative. The Community Development Director stated that prior to July 1st, staff will update the fee study; she is hearing there might be an interest in looking at what are the components of the work activity that goes into administering the program; pass-through has to wait for one year from the date of the referendum; if the ordinance is incorporated in the City Charter, staff and Council's abilities may be determined in November and Council could be precluded from doing the pass-through. Mayor Spencer requested clarification if the City Attorney's position is that if the Charter amendment passes, there cannot be a subsequent action by Council in regards to pass- through. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Spencer agreed to withdraw the referral. No vote was taken on the motion. (18-050) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Information on the Citywide Dockless Bike Sharing Program and Return to Council with Additional Safety Requirements. Not heard. (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella) (18-051) Consider Banning Motorized Commercial Vehicles, Including Robotic Commercial Vehicles, from Sidewalks and Commercial Drone Aircraft Used for Deliveries. Not heard. (Councilmember Matarrese) COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (18-052) Mayor Spencer noted that she and Councilmember Matarrese attended the Martin Luther King ceremony held in City Hall. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:15 a.m. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 January 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-01-16.pdf CityCouncil,2017-11-07,23,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated her notes read that the Vice Mayor's concern was employee safety; hours of operation should be 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Councilmember Oddie stated the extra hour was to allow for closing up shop, delivering or receiving product, or going to the bank. Mayor Spencer inquired whether hours of operation means when a customer can come into the store, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the language could be clarified; stated that she would like the language to read: ""hours open to the public are 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. The City Manager responded business hours is used because a lab does not have customers. Mayor Spencer stated the language needs to be amended. Vice Mayor Vella stated the hours of operation pertains to the business hours; the extra hour is to go to the bank, get shipments or conduct business. Mayor Spencer stated the language needs to be clear. The Community Development Director stated the only entity open to the public is dispensaries; the language will be clarified. The City Manager stated three votes are needed to pass the ordinance tonight; if there are not three votes, Council needs to focus on a ban to meet the State regulations; if there are enough changes or Council does not have the three votes, time should be spent focusing on the ban. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would accept two nurseries, to which Council did not agree. Mayor Spencer inquired whether food can be allowed by State law, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded State law only prohibits alcohol. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether allowing food is a different type of permit; stated a medicinal dispensary allows for edibles. The Community Development Director responded food means non-cannabis infused food. Vice Mayor Vella stated the applicant can apply for the required permit; the ban would even restrict vending machines. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-11-07.pdf CityCouncil,2017-10-17,23,"The City Manager responded Council requested the PAC be added. The Assistant Community Development Director stated the PAC is covered in the call for review process; the direction can be to provide Council with an action agenda any time one of the three boards meets stating what action was taken and whether the action is appealable. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not understand why the PAC is being included. The Assistant Community Development Director responded that PAC decisions include the review and approval of a developer's public art proposal, which is allowed to have a call for review. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested leaving PAC out of the process. Vice Mayor Vella stated there have been public art issues in other cities; she would like to reserve the right to call certain decisions for review. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council is giving direction to have staff provide an action agenda for the PAC. The Assistant Community Development Director responded that all three are included: Planning Board, HAB and PAC. Mayor Spencer clarified there are four Councilmembers giving direction for staff to provide an action agenda. Councilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance with the amendments. The Assistant Community Development Director stated the two amendments to the ordinance are: 1) ""now requires two Councilmembers;"" and 2) ""okay for different reasons."" Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (17-368) Resolution No. 15320, ""Approving Guidelines for the Sister Cities Program."" Adopted. The Community Development Management Analyst gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff evaluates and recommends potential sister cities or is that only done by Alameda Sister City Association (ASCA). The Community Development Management Analyst responded that staff forwards Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 17, 2017 19",CityCouncil/2017-10-17.pdf CityCouncil,2006-09-19,23,"Contracts. Commissioner Matarrese requested that the budget portion of staff reports identify whether or not costs are included in the theater and garage project budgets in the future. The Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation; provided a handout on the budget. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether other increases are anticipated, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the negative. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether a milestone chart would be available, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded a milestone charge would be available within a week or two. Commissioner deHaan stated the Council should be provided with any information given to the public ahead of time. Chair Johnson stated the public should know that parking would not be available at the old Video Maniacs site after September 28. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of staff recommendations to approve the amended Contract with Architectural Resources Group [paragraph no. 06-056CIC] and to approve the amended Contract with Komorous-Towey Architects [paragraph no. 06-057CIC]. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner deHaan inquired where the developer stands within the process. The Redevelopment Manager responded the developer is a little bit behind the garage process; stated the developer is finalizing construction drawings and would be submitting the drawings for plan check and to other contractors for pricing. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the developer has met all financial requirements. The Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the City is working closely with the Bank of Alameda to finalize the developer's financing. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Noes Commissioner deHaan - 1. (06-057CIC) Recommendation to approve the amended Contract with Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 2 and Redevelopment Authority, Community Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners September 19, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf CityCouncil,2021-05-04,23,"working conditions; she was impressed with how the situation played out; the communication was respectful; the change speaks volumes for the company; she is satisfied with the due diligence performed. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she was Mayor at the time of the change in employment for ACI workers; every Councilmember supported the change, which was overwhelmingly supported by the community; she has looked at the numbers; since 2006, the rate for the smallest bin was $45 for the quarter; the annual rate of inflation since 2006 has been 1.89%, which would bring the cost up to $59; however, the current cost for the smallest bin is $132.20 per quarter; the result is a compounded interest of 6% per annum over time; the graph only shows the past four years; the rate increase has been more; if there is a 5% increase each year, the resulting fee would be $188 per quarter; the increase is a problem; people have a problem paying the fee; there are 15% lower rates for those that qualify as low-income or are senior citizens; the 15% reduction could help people in need; expressed support for Council looking at a higher percentage in reduction for low- income and for ACI making the discount clearer on the website; discussed ACI's website; stated many seniors and low-income qualifying people might not know about the discount process; she would like ACI's website to clearly indicate the discount; she appreciates the work performed; expressed concern about profits and ACI being a private company; stated it is impossible to know what the profits truly are; the percentage rate is high; many people are not earning a 6% increase over time; when long-term contracts are presented, clearly showing the numbers is important; expressed support for a one-page document clearly showing the formula; stated that she does not expect anyone to review a 30-page analysis document to figure out the contract increases; 5% is a significant increase; there is not enough consideration for the affordability of a 5% increase; the contract should have gone out for bid. The Assistant City Manager stated the rate changes over the past 15 years have included positive changes, such as recycling and compost programs and Senate Bill (SB) 1383; SB1383 deals with food waste recovery and composting; the programs are the right thing to do from an environmental perspective; the programs do have costs and are seen in rate changes over time; the 5% is a maximum and not a set number; the rate adjustments will be fully vetted and discussed in the context of the calculations mentioned earlier. The City Manager stated that he would like the discounts re-stated and clarified for the public. The Assistant City Manager stated Councilmember Herrera Spencer is correct; the 15% discount is available by contacting ACI; there is a rate stabilization portion of the agreement; Council is presented with delinquent accounts on an annual basis; there are not many delinquent accounts; Council has the opportunity to make decisions about how the City moves forward with said accounts. Councilmember Daysog stated the crux of the matter is the question of extending on a no- compete sole source contract to ACI or if Council should open the matter up to a competitive bid process; there are a number of other outfits which might be able to deliver services to Alameda; in order for him to evaluate the question and judge how to make the best decision, he needs to know that there is solid data provided to support the decision one Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 May 4, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf CityCouncil,2020-06-02,23,"Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of directing staff to remove Sections 26-2 and 26-3 from the City Charter. There being no second, Vice Mayor Knox White rescinded the motion. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has directed staff to place ballot language repealing Section 26-1 before the people in November 2020. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Section 26-2 is needed if Article 26-1 be repealed; stated that he understood Section 26-2 relates to Section 26-1 not Section 26- 3; Section 26-2 exempts the Housing Authority from Section 26-1. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff will return and advise Council whether or not Section 26-2 should stay; further analysis will be conducted to understand whether Section 26-2 should remain if Section 26-3 be kept. (20-378) Recommendation to Consider Providing Direction to Staff to Prepare Charter Amendment Ballot Measure(s) and Potentially Determine the Election Dates when the Measure(s) will be on the Ballot. The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether Council is able to place items on the 2022 ballot or would the matter fall under another Council purview. The City Clerk responded the provided elections date options are for information and to relay timing; stated if the Council pay item is placed on the 2022 ballot, the implementation date would change. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he wants to ensure clarity for the current Council's ability to place things on the 2020 ballot; inquired whether changing his or her to they/their has been considered for Section 2-16 under gender neutral references to allow the descriptors to be fully de-gendered. The City Attorney responded Council could direct a measure be placed on a future election date; however, any future Council would have the right to withdraw the measure; staff in the Attorney's office is willing to take direction related to terms used in de-gendering. The City Clerk responded the language in the staff report is language that is currently in the Charter, not proposed language. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 June 2, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-02.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2017-12-14,23,"Here, we believe that a lease of a public building to a private nonprofit religious school in an arms-length transaction without preference being given to religion per se would not constitute a violation of either the federal or state Constitutions. (See 45 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 89 (1965); 43 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 62 (1964); 25 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 309, supra.) As reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos (1987) 483 U.S. 327, 334: ""'This court has long recognized that the government may (and sometimes must) accommodate religious practices and that it may do so without violating the Establishment Clause.' There is ample room under the Establishment Clause for 'benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interferences. "" We conclude that a city may lease a public building to a private nonprofit religious school without requiring that the school be open to all religious beliefs of prospective students. 3. Refusing to Lease City Property The final question presented is whether a city may refuse to lease a public building to a private nonprofit religious school solely on the basis that the school is not open to all religious beliefs of prospective students. We conclude that the city may not so refuse. With respect to the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution, it is evident that the city's leasing policy would divide potential private religious school lessees into two groups: those who would not allow admission to students of all religious beliefs, and those who would. Whether a city may make such a division is not easily resolved. In what the United States Supreme Court has characterized as an ""extraordinarily sensitive area of constitutional law,"" ""we can only dimly perceive the lines of demarcation"" between permissible and impermissible government action involving religious institutions. (Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 403 U.S. 602, 612.) On the one hand, the city's interests would include preventing religious discrimination on public property, fostering educational opportunities for all students, and avoiding giving the city's ""imprimatur of approval"" to the school's religious creed, whatever it might be. The establishment clause ""prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief "" (Id., at pp. 593-594; see Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah (1993) 508 U.S. 520, 532-533; Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU (1989) 492 U.S. 573, 605; Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, supra, 483 U.S. at 335; Woodland Hills Homeowners Organization V. Los Angeles Community College Dist., supra, 218 Cal.App.3d at 92-93.) On the other hand, the interests of the school officials include, as discussed in answer to the first question, the free exercise of religion clause, the freedom of speech clause, and the freedom of association clause of the state and federal Constitutions. (See Widmar v. Vincent, supra, 454 U.S. at 269-270.) Weighing these competing interests, we find that although a state or local government may not discriminate against religious groups, a religious group is not subject to the same",RecreationandParkCommission/2017-12-14.pdf CityCouncil,2022-02-01,23,"Councilmember Daysog moved approval of directing staff to address identifying new areas at Alameda Point to develop a number of housing units above the originally agreed upon amount. Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she agrees with the referral; the matter is something Council has tried to get more information about; expressed concern about waiting for the Housing Element; noted Alameda Point is roughly one third of the entire Island; it makes sense to focus on the area of Alameda Point. Vice Mayor Vella stated some of Alameda Point will be a wetlands preserve; she assumes the City will not build housing on the preserve; noted the Navy cap still exists; staff is in the process of negotiating with the Navy; she has heard concerns about job creation; expressed support for clarification on where staff will be looking to add housing; questioned whether the direction is to reduce parkland or the enterprise zone. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about duplicative efforts; stated City staff are doing a lot and are stretched thin; the City is building houses and opening businesses; the challenges are not that the City has more area than discovered, it is trying to make projects pencil out and get built; she does not support the referral. Councilmember Daysog stated the point of the referral is to have staff indicate where housing could occur; the referral is not to say whether housing should occur on wetland areas or natural preserves; staff may report back that housing can be placed in the Enterprise District and provide the necessary regulatory steps; some of the steps will sync with the RHNA process and some will not; there is value to the public in understanding the steps needed to be taken for more housing at Alameda Point. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated one of the things the RHNA process is looking for is that a city not concentrate all new housing in one place and that the housing is dispersed throughout the city; Council recently voted on the Encinal Terminals project, which added housing in the Northern Waterfront area; the RHNA obligation needs to be met; staff has presented various housing sites throughout the City; expressed concern about residents being misled by thinking all housing can be placed at Alameda Point; plans provide a balance of jobs and housing at Alameda Point to replace the 18,000 jobs lost when the Navy Base closed; the jobs and housing balance is desired to not over burden one area of the City; she is concerned about the idea of trying to meet the RHNA obligation solely at Alameda Point. Councilmember Daysog stated the referral contemplates the fact that additional housing could not be a part of the 2023 to 2031 RHNA process based on the time it takes to change regulations and perform an RFP, developer selection and Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) going beyond the timeline; the referral recommends staff gather information on the process for increasing housing at Alameda Point. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 1, 2022 23",CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf CityCouncil,2022-05-03,23,"exhibits attached to the staff report and whether documents are redline. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the draft HE published for public review on April 5th is the draft before Council; staff released an initial set of clarifications and changes for the May 9th Planning Board meeting in order to show necessary clean-up; staff does not have a redline version, but a list of changes has been started. Councilmember Knox White stated Council has received a number of comments related to the height of buildings in the commercial district; inquired whether it is possible for the City to get three story buildings with housing in the commercial districts. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff has been speaking with property owners and housing developers about Park and Webster Streets; stated staff is recommending a five story height limit due to feedback from property owners and housing developers; the feedback included the extreme difficulty and unlikeliness for housing to be built on Park or Webster Streets; Park Street and Webster Street already have buildings; a three story limit does not make sense economically; if Council wants to maintain a three story height limit on Webster Street, it is possible; staff will then have to reduce the real estate capacity and 400 units will not be attained on Park and Webster Streets; the units will need to be accommodated in the residential district. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how density bonus impacts height limits. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded density bonus is typically a 20% bonus if a property owner or developer proposes additional affordable housing; the Park and Webster Streets proposed five story height limit is best viewed as a four stories of residential; if an owner provides affordable housing, they would receive a 20% density bonus; almost every density bonus project performed in the past has used a 20% bonus; the bonus provides for an additional story; the past 10 years, every project has been required to provide a density bonus due to the multi-family prohibition; the only way projects could provide multi-family units in Alameda was through density bonus; once the multi-family prohibition is removed, staff anticipates there will not be as many density bonus projects; Alameda provides significantly more density bonus projects when compared to other cities in the area. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether a project might have a higher height limit if the owner qualifies for a density bonus, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative. In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's further inquiry, the Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated Council could decide how many places to allow multi-family by right; other types of housing, such as supportive housing, is allowed by right under State law; if Council does not allow multi-family housing, shared housing must still be allowed by right; shared housing cannot be treated differently than single family homes. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 3, 2022 19",CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-27,23,"The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the fund also includes rental income. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated the fund also pays for a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) debt service loan; the fund will be closed when the HUD loan is paid off; the Council/Commission/Board Member's would then need to figure out what to do with the excess revenue. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated excess revenues could be used for maintenance. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated Fund 621.2 is the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service fund which has a negative projected cash fund balance; the service is being packaged up to send to WETA; the 600 series are Enterprise Funds; numbers are merged assets and liabilities and are not necessarily negative cash but depreciation; in the very near future, the City will only have two enterprise funds: sewer and golf. * * (10-390 CC/ARRA/10-64 CIC) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past 12:00 midnight. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated previous discussions have involved surveying the Beltline property; that she has discussed the potential for having a fire station on one of the pieces or property with the Interim City Manager/Executive Director; $400,000 has been set aside for soft costs for a fire station; inquired whether the idea is still being pursued. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated a corner piece of the Beltline property could be a good spot for relocation of Fire Station 3; that she thinks looking at a complete site analysis and location would be warranted; using existing City property for buildings is important because buying property and building the structure costs too much; constructing a building on City-owned land could easily be done with some one-time monies in the CIP Fund; the CIP Discretionary Fund does not include dollars discussed earlier regarding the sale of the employee parking lot but does include two hits of one-time revenues, which are AMP back payments in the amount of $1.2 million and approximately $800,000 of administrative dollars that had not been charged to the refinanced assessment districts for approximately ten years; the CIP Discretionary Fund has approximately a $2 million projected balance; expenses have not been projected; six to eight months ago, Public Works sold a small portion of Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 23 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf CityCouncil,2010-04-20,23,"The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated the Notice of Preparation will have a footnote describing the difference between Measure B and density bonus option; Measure B and the density bonus option are essentially the same in terms of residential units; the density bonus option includes one additional acre of open space and additional commercial square footage. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan questioned why SunCal had a Measure A non-compliant proposal because the numbers are the same. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the [modified OEA] project is Measure A compliant. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the density bonus is Measure A compliant. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded a density bonus application has not been submitted; the [density bonus] project is foreseeable and needs to be studied under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because SunCal submitted a project description letter. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether there are any obligations to outreach to Chinatown regarding the scooping session. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded a Notice of Preparation would be sent to Chinatown. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether Chinatown would need to attend the public scooping session and the City would not have a special session with Chinatown, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services regular meetings are scheduled with Chinatown; a special meeting can be discussed. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether there is committee with Planning Board Members. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated the committee meets monthly; stated the Planning Services Manager represents the City and would raise the issue; the Chinatown Committee would receive the Notice of Preparation and be invited to attend the May 10th meeting. In response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry regarding the agreement with Chinatown capping the number of housing units at 1,100 until a transportation solution is in place, the Planning Supervises Manager stated the agreement with Chinatown is designed to ensure coordination with Chinatown in the preparation of the EIR; the 1,100 figure is not a cap; the agreement states that the City would provide a specific amount for Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 3 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf CityCouncil,2007-12-04,23,"disposition of the second warehouse, the developer will go back to the Planning Board and make a presentation regarding the feasibility of retaining the warehouse; the May and September plans do not contemplate the retention of the second warehouse; currently, the Plan calls for the retention of the first warehouse for Clif Bar; several other warehouses south of the wharf will be partially deconstructed and made into parking sheds; the developer is committed to recycle and reuse elements if the second warehouse is not used. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the office space square footage for Clif Bar, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded approximately 100,000 square feet. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the remaining square footage of the building, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded approximately 300,000 square feet. Councilmember/CommissionerdeHaan inquired whether three to five story buildings are still contemplated on the wharf. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the Master Plan provides for a maximum of five stories; stated the height limit was reduced to 85 feet last year. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the waterfront would have five-story buildings, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded possibly. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the issue would be contrary to the planning principles of having more open, step down designs to the waterfront. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the Master Plan provides for a maximum of five stories; stated the new buildings would be set back from the waterfront; there would be waterfront access and open space more than 100 feet from the water ; the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) requires a minimum 100 foot setback from the water. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the cost estimate for retrofitting the wharf. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded between $30 million and $35 million; stated San Francisco waterfront Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 9 and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf CityCouncil,2008-10-21,23,"the General Fund; as claims come in during the year, money is backfilled into the workers' compensation budget. Mayor/Chair Johnson requested that the reporting be made clearer. The Interim Finance Director stated the amount is on the balance sheet, not the profit and loss statement. the amount does not have to be liquid and can be in an asset. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the City is federally required to have $5 million [for workers' compensation] ; inquired whether the $5 million is part of the $10 million that is cash in the [General Fund] fund balance. The Interim Finance Director responded in the negative; stated the number is recorded as a liability; however, the money is not earmarked exclusively for workers' compensation. The City Attorney concurred that the amount does not need to be earmarked; stated there must be at least that much money in the General Fund. The Interim Finance Director stated if Council wanted to fund it, the cash would be moved someplace. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the fund balance is $16 million, $10 million of which is cash; $5 million of the $10 million [in cash) has to remain liquid [for workers' compensation]. The Interim Finance Director stated the federal requirement is that the City has to have the capacity to pay. The City Attorney concurred that the City has to demonstrate the capacity to pay; stated the way the City does so is by keeping the money in the General Fund. The Interim Finance Director concluded the presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson requested that the amount budgeted for the next fiscal year be included in another column in future reports; stated some funds have significant balances and might need to be reviewed; further requested that the police overtime Contract overtime be reviewed to ensure that the amount charged fully funds all costs. The Interim Finance Director stated contract overtime would be handled differently; there would be an object code to show expenses Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 6 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 21, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf CityCouncil,2015-11-04,23,"503 did not work. Councilmember Oddie stated a mixture would be needed since single family units would not be eligible for arbitration. The Community Development Director stated the next layer is staff would draft a just cause eviction ordinance that would include relocation benefits. Councilmember Oddie stated there should be a review period. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated relocation assistance and just cause eviction provisions would apply to all units. Councilmember Oddie stated an extended notice period should be considered if only relocation assistance is considered. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter should return to the Council in a year. Mayor Spencer stated ""not to exceed 8%"" should be added to Section 2 of the urgency ordinance. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft read the language: ""...no housing provider shall notice an increase in rent or increase rent above 8% per year."" Councilmember Daysog stated the language should include ""cumulatively looking back twelve months; the sum of which surpasses 8%."" Mayor Spencer inquired whether rent could not be increased above 8% even if the tenant already received notice, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated rent cannot be increased during the period. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney questioned whether the landlord could not evict a tenant during the period even if the notice has been served. In response Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the language could be clarified to: ""in accordance with State law"" and staff would review the matter. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he does not believe the City could trump an eviction if already noticed; stated the language will have to be tweaked to comply with State law. Consensus was reached to add the language: ""in accordance with State law."" Mayor Spencer inquired whether a definition of rent could be added to make it clear that fees are included. Special Meeting Alameda City Council November 4, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf CityCouncil,2011-02-15,23,"AGENDA ITEM (11-093 CC/11-019 ARRA/11-011 CIC) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Financial Report Through December 31, 2010 and Approve the Mid-Year Budget Adjustments to the City's FY10-11 Budget. The Controller gave brief presentation. Mayor/Chair Gilmore inquired whether the $1.1 million for the Alameda Point Going Forward Project is related to what was requested tonight under another item [Perkins + Will contract, paragraph no. 11-018 ARRA] The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the Contract is included in the $1.1 million; stated staff is suggesting using $300,000 in bond money so that the net would be $700,000, which includes $400,000 for water and $330,000 for the Alameda Point Going Forward Project. Mayor/Chair Gilmore inquired whether approving the funding would back ARRA into approving the contract. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the item would not go forward without the contract being approved by ARRA. Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated that she and Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan asked for an explanation regarding the General Fund balance. The Acting City Manager/Executive Director stated a memo would go out tomorrow. The Controller stated the available reserves in the General Fund ranged from 14% to 21% for Fiscal Year 2001-2002; the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 budget is at 21% and is similar to Fiscal Year 2002-2003 and Fiscal Year 2003-2004; the main reason the percentage has gone up is that the Fleet Industrial Service Center (FISC) Special Revenue Fund has repaid the City $1 million from a loan; the City has had expenditure savings on average of about 5% the last couple of years; unexpected vacancies result in savings; capital maintenance expenditures were approximately $600,000 for Fiscal Year 2004-2005; in Fiscal Year 2009-2010, $1.5 million was spent; $2 million has been budged for Fiscal Year 2010-2011. The Acting City Manager/Executive Director stated departments have done a lot of belt tightening; one year, expenditures came in $5 million under budget. The Controller stated Fiscal Year 2009-2010 had a positive variance and generated about $3 million in savings; the percentage variance was only 2% for revenues in Fiscal Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 8 Community Improvement Commission February 15, 2001",CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf CityCouncil,2017-12-05,23,"Expressed concern over the Police Department's License Plate Readers (LPRs) being accessed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which does not seem consistent with being a Sanctuary City: Gaby Dolphin, Alameda. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not believe the City is big enough to warrant an oversight committee; the Council is immediately accessible to the public; the Council holds the City Manager accountable; requested staff to respond to the LPR database being used by ICE. The Police Chief stated ICE is one of the 28 or 29 agencies that is part of the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC); the LPR policy addresses the data going to NCRIC; data is purged every six months; LPRs do not photograph the occupants of the vehicle; information on the license plate has to be accessed through the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV); the way the readers operate should not be a problem; noted four LPRs are mounted on four patrol cars. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not support an oversight committee; the Council is the oversight committee; issues can be discussed with the City Manager; that he would not want to relinquish his Councilmember role of dealing with said issues. Councilmember Oddie briefly discussed the LPR scenario; stated the City is really not providing any information that federal agencies cannot already access; stated the matter will be discussed in more detail at another time; read from an email Council received regarding the matter; stated the Police Department is responsible for oversight; the City Manager reports directly to Council; the City is small enough to react quickly; discussed racial profiling and a recent neighborhood meeting; stated that he has not seen data showing there is a profiling issue; he is not sure the committee is needed at this point. Vice Mayor Vella stated the LPRs could capture patterns and habits; her concern is agencies will use the City's data to track patterns and habits; the Sanctuary City resolution addresses actively deciding whether or not to enable ICE; she does not have enough information on the issue; stated the City did have a Police Commission at one point in the early 1900s, which was in the City Charter and decided upon by the voters; discussed the historic information and suggested it be reviewed prior to forming a committee. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City has an outstanding Police Department; discussed the current police climate; stated that she does not see a need for the committee. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the public can anonymously report issues, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative. In response to Mayor Spencer inquiry how the public can do so, the Police Chief stated online, via letter, or on a complaint form; stated all anonymous complaints are Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 December 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-12-05.pdf CityCouncil,2019-04-02,23,"consecutive days requires permission, and will be required of her over the summer months; expressed concern about Section 2-14 not applying to the Auditor and Treasurer positions; outlined Section 7-3 as an item to be discussed as a community; if the positions of Auditor and Treasurer continue to exist and receive benefits, inconsistent items apply to Council and not the Auditor or Treasurer; discussed Section 8-1 regarding City Attorney hiring requirements and limitations; requested bifurcation of Charter items to be discussed with different interested parties; stated the process should be made public; the Charter has not been updated for some time, the current update process is due. Councilmember Oddie stated some items to update can be compartmentalized and reviewed together; expressed support for the process. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the LWV be included in the subcommittee conversations; inquired if paid signature gatherers can be reviewed. The City Clerk responded that the City Charter does trump the Elections Code, but the issue would need to be reviewed. Vice Mayor Knox White stated there are restrictions that can be adopted, but some methods cannot be stopped. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is a good time to review the City Charter; learning from other cities will be key; the City Attorney hiring requirements can be reviewed; discussed the Measure A process; expressed support of looking at removing the Auditor and Treasurer positions; stated the pregnancy provisions under the Charter need to be updated; requested more refinement to the Charter updates. Vice Mayor Knox White outlined the items to bring back to Council for discussion. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft urged the LWV involvement. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for Councilmember's Oddie and Vella breakdown to bifurcate topics or put them into ""bucket lists;"" suggested members of the LWV assist Council in finding which items to place with others. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired how the Measure A item will be handled. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that item should be placed at the top of a discussion list; discussed Measure A issues related to housing. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he will strike any Board and Commission updates; Council pay will stay on as a discussion item; paid signature gathering will move to another location, not the City Charter; outlined the general timeline. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 April 2, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-04-02.pdf CityCouncil,2009-11-17,23,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 17, 2009- -6:50 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (09-455 - ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9. Number of cases: Onel Under negotiation: Price and terms. (09-456) Conference with Legal Counsel - Liability Claim (54956.95) i Claimant Mohamed Mahama Agency Claimed Against : City of Alameda. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel on a matter of potential litigation; no action was taken; regarding Liability Claim, Council discussed the claim with Legal Counsel and provided direction. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf CityCouncil,2010-09-07,23,"regarding the Alaska Packers Building; a guide of the ENA should be to protect the Alaska Packers Building as a City asset to ensure that there would not be future incompatibilities with a working boat yard and adjacent residences; a project labor agreement would be needed; zoning should be reviewed to ensure compatibility; said issues should be spelled out as ENA conditions. Commissioner Tam stated tonight, she is not ready to craft a motion to enter into an ENA; that she is does not have the same level of comfort as her colleagues without a comprehensive review of relocation plans and financing; the Animal Shelter is a very sensitive, emotional issue in the community; public comment is needed before she is comfortable with moving forward. Commissioner Gilmore inquired what would be the timeframe for bringing the matter back; further inquired whether relocation sites and costs could not be started. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the contract to do so [relocation study] is separate. Commissioner Gilmore stated she would like to move forward with looking at relocation sites and costs. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the review would take eight months to a year. Commissioner Gilmore stated coming back with an [revised] ENA would not take eight months to a year. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services inquired whether Council would like staff to come back [with the ENA] in twelve months. Chair Johnson stated staff should get started on the relocation part. Commissioner Tam stated certain things need to be nailed down; that she does not know how long it would take to nail things down; the public process needs to be transparent. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services inquired whether the Commission wants the relocation study started or completed [before entering into the ENA]. The Interim Executive Director stated that she recommends a parallel track; a complete relocation analysis and study with a consultant would take several months. Chair Johnson stated that she likes an almost parallel track, suggested getting started on the relocation part. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community 5 Improvement Commission September 7, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf PlanningBoard,2005-06-13,23,"8-E. UP05-0008/DR05-0028 - Use Permit and Final Design Review of the Proposed New Civic Center Parking Garage - City of Alameda (DSD). Consideration of a Use Permit and Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings, for a new 352-space parking structure at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site. This site is located at 1416 Oak Street within the C-C and C-C-PD (Community Commercial and Community Commercial -- Planned Development) Districts. M/S McNamara/Lynch and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of June 27, 2005. AYES - 4 (Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 1 (Kohlstrand) 9. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 10. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: a. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Committee APAC (Vice-President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that the final community meeting was held the previous week, at which time the staff presented the preferred development concept, as well as the Non-Measure A alternatives to that in greater detail. Staff will work on a final copy of that report, which would be available in several weeks. That report would be the subject of hearings with the ARRA Board and the Planning Board over the next 12 to 18 months. She noted that the community hearings had been well-attended. b. Oral Status Report regarding Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook). Vice President Cook advised that there had been no further meetings. c. Oral Status Report regarding the Golf Course Committee (Board Member Piziali). Board member Piziali advised that there was nothing to report at this time. d. Oral Status Report regarding Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board member Mariani). Board member Mariani was not in attendance to present this report. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: None. Planning Board Minutes Page 23 June 13, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-13.pdf CityCouncil,2010-03-16,23,"Mayor Johnson stated the motion does not include picking a configuration; inquired whether it would make sense to have a workshop to explain options at the golf course during the period of negotiations; stated tonight's meeting is not the best place to discuss what would work. Vice Mayor deHaan stated a different concept has been presented tonight; that he would like to have more defined direction; he is not sure about having a workshop. Mayor Johnson stated golfers should have the opportunity to provide input. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she has a very clear understanding of what golfers want; financial feasibility is the only issue. Mayor Johnson stated that she does not believe a decision will be a specific option; there will be tradeoffs. Councilmember Matarrese stated financial boundaries need to be reviewed. Mayor Johnson stated that she understands the issue regarding the two 18-hole courses; that she does not believe the issue is black and white. Vice Mayor deHaan stated everything is open for discussion; that he would like to be able to provide what he prefers. Mayor Johnson stated that everyone agrees with having two 18-hole courses; the question is economic feasibility. Ms. Sullwold inquired whether a joint City Council and Golf Commission workshop could be held after 60 days to discuss ideas. The Interim City Manager stated a business term sheet could be provided in July and could be turned into a lease or license agreement between one or two parties. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of negotiating with both parties with the understanding that components are needed for a par 3, driving range, and two 18-hole championship courses; stated the starting point would be two 18-hole courses and looking for financial feasibility; direction is to come back with a business term sheet based on the starting point, incorporating the non-profit aspect for operating the par 3 and working backwards from there. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion with the modification that the Mif Albright course portion not be addressed after the fact. Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion started with the need for a par 3 course. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 March 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf PlanningBoard,2007-03-26,23,"Mr. Thomas noted that it would be rezoned MX, and that it would come back to the Planning Board and City Council. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that under Landscaping at the bottom of page 12, she would like to see language stating that landscaping within this area would be ""Bay- friendly"" landscaping, as defined by StopWaste.org. She brought their guidelines in for the other Board members to read. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the title in Item 24 should be corrected to: ""Adjacent to the Oakland-Alameda Estuary."" Vice President Cook noted that the pedestrian/bicycle routes should have the amenities such as racks and plantings outside the minimum width of the right of way. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a map of the truck routes in Alameda was available. Vice President Cook noted that on Number 23, the following change should be made: ""consider opportunities to create attractive gateways "" Vice President Cook noted that on the first 24 should include the following language: ""Provide retail, restaurant and café uses that open out to the shore to activate the shoreline both night and day where feasible."" Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that in 29 (Child care system), 6.5.d, whether childcare licensing was done by the State. Mr. Thomas confirmed that was the case, and that in facilities with fewer than six children, a use permit was necessary and could be streamlined. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that in the Resolutions, February 24 should be changed to February 26, and that March 24 should be changed to March 26. Board member Cunningham moved to recommend to City Council to certifying the findings of the EIR and approve a General Plan Amendment as noted. Board member Kohlstrand seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote - 6. Absent: Mariani. 9-D. Presentation of Broadway and Jackson Street access improvements to Interstate 880. No action will be taken on this item. In response to an inquiry by President Lynch, Mr. Thomas advised that the applicant was unable to remain at the meeting. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to continue this item. Vice President Cook seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 6. Planning Board Minutes Page 23 March 26, 2007",PlanningBoard/2007-03-26.pdf CityCouncil,2008-06-03,23,"because the amount is deferred. Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated that she totaled a $5.1 million debt; $6 million would be issued; inquired whether there is some minimum limit. The Finance Director responded $6 million is the approximate amount; stated $5,490,000 would be issued; interest rates change the numbers are based on estimated interest rates; the interest rates are favorable now. Councilmember/Authority Member Gilmore stated the matter is a cash flow issue; approximately $600,000 would not be spent in the first year; $600,000 would be spent over fifteen years. Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether the loans were refinanced already. The Finance Director responded only the Police Building was refinanced in 1996. Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan inquired why the Police Building was refinanced. The Finance Director responded because interest rates dropped significantly. Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan stated the City gets into trouble by deferring and refinancing. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired when the Police Building was constructed, to which the Finance Director responded 1990. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what was the original planned bond issue. The Finance Director responded the $2.8 million bond was issued in 1990 with interest rates of 5.8% to 7.25%. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired when the bond would have been paid if not refinanced, to which the Finance Director responded she would guess 2010. Councilmember/Authority Member Matarrese stated that he is not in favor; savings are not being made on the interest rates and future Councils will be burdened; debt will be deferred if not paid now. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 9 Financing Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf CityCouncil,2014-07-15,23,"I am saddened on how this has really affected my budget the last past 12 months. I can't seen to save any money with the way our economy is still below percentage for jobs and resources to improve employment status. Currently unemployed. No income. Paying rent from savings. Cannot afford another rental increase. Where will I move? ""NO REAL CONCERN BEYOND NORMAL. LANDLORD USALLY HAS ASKED ME IF I COULD AFFORD A RENT INCREASE? SOME TIMES HE DOES NOT INCREASE'S IT. 3% IS Fair. I LIVE IN A GOOD AREA OF ALAMEDA. ALAMEDA IS WORTH MORE TO LIVE HERE. COMPARED TO S.F. SAFER THAN NEIGHBORING TOWN'S. I PAY ELECTRIC ONLY. I SEE CITY VARIOUS BUSINESS FEE'S GOING UP. I SEE IN THE NEWS THAT PROPERTY TAX'S ARE GOING UP.LANDLOARD PAY'S ACI, EBMUD AND PG&E. LANDLOARD SAY'S LOAN IS ON A VARIABLE %. Greater than 10% increase in single month. This landlord purchased the two buildings 2 months before I moved in. ALL the tenants save 2 have moved out because she increased the rent by $200 if not more. One tenant was an 85 yr old SICK woman who ran out of money & had to move into state run home- she died after being there 4 days! All the tenants who moved in after me are paying $1650 & over. After a fire in one unit & subsequent construction ( still ongoing), landlord is trying to get $1850 + for 1 bedroom apts. I'm sure she will raise my rent at end of lease in November. We are mostly concerned about the reasons for the increase: HOA dues, parcel tax increase, and other increased expenses. The dues we discovered increased by only 11.00 and if there we are asked to vote on parcel tax increase, we now feel we'd be charged for those increased expenses so it's pressured us to offer a negative vote regardless of the issue. I'm disabled and my social security disability is my only source of income because I receive my benefit on the 2nd Wednesday of the month I am always late and pay a $100 fee. In addition I locked myself out and he onside manager charged me $50 to unlock my door! I am paying 90 percent of my income on rent My husband and I live in a studio apartment that we moved into when I was on a contract job and he was just starting a new job because we figured in 6 months or a year when our employment situations stabilized, we would move to a 1 bedroom, which was going for about $1200 at the time, I would say. They have gone up so much that we consider something in the $1400-1500 range a bargain, but not a good enough price to consider moving. Meanwhile we are in fear of our rent going up to what a 1 bedroom was when we first came to Alameda just over 1 year ago. The building I have called home for the last seven years recently changed hands and the rent was increased. The increase was uneven and I believe illegally applied. This is a five unit converted Victorian with 4 one bedroom units and a studio. Two of the one bedrooms have a small bonus space, maybe big enough for an office or a nursery, with a window and a door but no closet. When XXX was managing the building they said they did not qualify as bedrooms. Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015 5 www.RenewedHopeHousing.org RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com Laura Thomas (510)522-8901",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf CityCouncil,2007-07-17,23,"Christopher Buckley, Alameda, submitted handout stated the proposed banners should be larger to cover the three center bays; a trompe d'oil treatment or grilled panels are options. Chair Johnson inquired whether the recommended options could be done after the completion of the parking structure, to which Mr. Buckley responded in the affirmative. Richard W. Rutter, Alameda, stated evergreens are a good decoration studio; that he does not think money should be spent on banners; banners draw attention to the façade an architectural grilled screen system might be a possibility. Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated the PSBA Board of Directors urges the Commission to take a low cost option. Chair Johnson stated the Cineplex developer should not be rushed; the City waited more than twenty-six years for the Historical Theater restoration; staff should inform the Commission if other [restoration] items need to be addressed while there is the opportunity; options need to be weighed inquired whether damaged niches are being replaced. The Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the niches have been re-varnished. Chair Johnson stated that she does not want items overlooked. The Redevelopment Manager stated a list of items and cost estimates would be provided. Chair Johnson stated the project team is doing a great job. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether staff would ensure that the viewable improvements, such as countertops and cabinetry, are the same quality and are appropriate for the restored interior, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative. MINUTES (07-027) - Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission (CIC) meeting and the Special CIC meeting held on July 3, 2007. Approved. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 3 July 17, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf CityCouncil,2009-02-03,23,"specific hours of operation; many potential tenants that could not do lunch hours were disqualified; the owner would not have been granted the lease for just a bar. Commissioner deHaan stated starting a new business is a challenge i the owner would go back to full hours if the right mix is found; a lot of money has been forgiven at Alameda Point a six month trial period is reasonable. Chair Johnson stated there are reasons for business hours. businesses need to be open to have a customer base. Commissioner Gilmore stated the business is already profitable later in the day and in the evening; that she does not understand how the business would be built up by closing from 11:00 a .m. to 4:00 p.m. Commissioner Matarrese stated the Commission was very clear on the lease provisions; the business is profitable now and ahead of projections; dead hours cannot be addressed if the business is not open; that he does not see the advantage of reducing hours; a change in the lease is premature. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of deferring any change to the lease until the business faces possible closure. Chair Johnson stated the business owner needs to implement the original business plan; changes need to be made. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Commissioner Tam stated that she would abstain from voting on the matter the staff report suggests the need for more marketing; that she does not feel there is enough information to tell the business owner how the business should be operated. Commissioner Gilmore stated that the business owner should live up to the terms of the lease; the hours of operation are very clear. Commissioner deHaan stated the business owner needs some leeway ; the City needs to work with the business owner. Commissioner Matarrese stated street activity was part of the plan to renovate the theatre and build the parking structure. the business plan is a good model; the retail side needs to be reviewed; salvaging the business might be an option if the business Special Joint Meeting Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 3 and Community Improvement Commission February 3, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf CityCouncil,2008-08-19,23,"billion hedge fund; D.E. Shaw is SunCal's existing partner for a big project in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how D.E. Shaw builds assets. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded D.E. Shaw is a typical hedge fund; stated D.E. Shaw's wherewithal to finance obligations pursuant to the ENA has been verified. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Lehman Brothers was ever a partner of the Alameda Point project, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the negative. The Assistant City Manager stated D.: E. Shaw is a privately held hedge fund; investors are confidential. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated cross- default is a concern because of all the projects that SunCal and D.E. Shaw have together ; the City wants to ensure that any ripples stop before reaching Alameda if something happens to another SunCal project. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese restated the motion to move approval of the staff recommendation with direction to: 1) negotiate a second amendment to the ENA, which would include a provision that the City would have the right to terminate the ENA if SunCal was removed for any reason other than illegal activity or material cause; 2) place a cap on the timeline to remove the flexibility of an automatic extension; 3) insulate against the possibility of cross defaults; and 4) establish mandatory milestones which would be synced with the status of the project. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (ARRA) Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative. Board Member Matarrese stated the August 13, 2008 Chronicle had an article about the Army giving the Fort Ord Reuse Authority 3,300 acres and $100 million for remediation: inquired whether information is true, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 6 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 19, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf CityCouncil,2020-07-07,23,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) TUESDAY--JULY 7, 2020- -6:59 P.M. Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:17 p.m. Councilmember/Commissioner Oddie led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via WebEx.] Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice Mayor/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye;",CityCouncil/2020-07-07.pdf CityCouncil,2022-04-05,23,"its belt when fiscal challenges arise, including letting City staff and services go to preserve the project services; the project is necessary, exciting and appropriate due to its proximity to services and amenities; he will continue to support the project; Councilmembers make difficult decisions and will have to prioritize housing for vulnerable families similar to the proposed project. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated the project is a stepping stone as part of the solution to ending homelessness in the region; the transitional housing is providing an opportunity for people to get off the street with wrap around services in order to help gain permanent housing; as people transition out to permanent housing, another group of formerly homeless individuals will come in; the project is something that is desired for other communities in the area; expressed support for the project and grant application. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. (22-226) Mayor's State of the City Address. The Mayor gave the State of the City Address. (22-227) Recommendation to Receive an Update on the Community Assessment Response and Engagement (CARE) Team Pilot Program and Authorize the Extension of the CARE Team Pilot Program until June 30, 2023. Continued to April 19, 2022. (22-228) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter VIII and Chapter XII Authorizing Public Works to Enforce Parking Provisions and Ensuring Consistency with California Vehicle Code. Not heard. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (22-229) The City Manager discussed the draft Housing Element being available for public review and comment at: www.alameda2040.org/housing, and a Posey/Webster Street Tube closure; announced the annual Alameda Free Library annual Peeps contest; discussed Alameda Restaurant Week. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (22-230) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (22-231) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (22-232) Consider Directing Staff to Bring the Rent Program ""In-House"" to the City Attorney's Office. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Vella) Continued to April 12, 2022. 22",CityCouncil/2022-04-05.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-07-11,23,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday July 11, 2018 6:30 p.m. 5. OLD BUSINESS 5-A. Commission and Board Liaison Reports Chair Beth Kenny: Now, we'll go on to agenda item five, Commission and Board Liaison Reports. Commissioner Billinger. Arnold Brillinger: Okay. If you were at the parade, you probably saw the shuttle go by. You probably saw me go by too because I made it all the way around. I would just want to say that we're working on doing all kinds of things to get people to ride the shuttle. Again, just like using the bikes is good for getting people out of single-person cars and the bus is also especially for older people and for those that are disabled. Right now, it's open to anybody. We're even going to have a couple of things like Gilligan's Island, there was a three-hour tour and turned into a long thing, right? Well, I came up with the idea. Arnold Brillinger: Let's have a free hour tour. Means that it's free. You don't have to pay anything to go on it, but we're going to have Dennis from the Alameda Sun come on and we're really sorry that we can't do this for as many people as we think that will be wanting to go on this to kind of give a historical tour as we go past some of these things in Alameda. And as we know, it goes on three different tours, three different routes, one on Tuesday, one on Wednesday, one on Thursday, but we're going to also get some of the information and on 11 X 17 sheets, and have them laminated so that people can as they're going by, say, ""Oh, look at there's where the peanut butter factory used to be for Skippy's.' Arnold Brillinger: Because it did start here in Alameda, and so forth. So those are just some of the things that we're getting to get people interested and aware because we realize a lot of people are working during the hours when it runs. But their older, their parents and their neighbors that are older, they need to know about it. So we're trying to get the information out to the various groups. So that's it for the shuttle. Now in Alameda, and we've had the presentation here from Victoria Williams on the Paratransit Program, where people can buy vouchers. Arnold Brillinger: They can have these tickets, they will bring them back from a doctor's appointment or a hospital or wherever they had to go for $2.50. Wherever it is in the county, and Alameda will pay the rest of it that way. And also, people of a certain age can get vouchers to ride regular taxis at a very much discounted price, like they get a $5 voucher for $1.50. And it helps them with making their budgeting work out. So, we do have those things. And I just wanted to say, besides the fact that I do go to the Oakland Commission on Disability and also Berkeley and stuff like that, they all seem to have representatives at the last meeting in Oakland where they talked about several things, one of them being the whole thing of shared bicycles and also accessible bicycles. Arnold Brillinger: And also, how to work with Uber and Lyft in getting rides that were equipped to handle wheelchairs. And there's an SB and I don't know the number of it, but just recently I heard about it, where in the legislature in Sacramento, they're considering this where a certain amount of each ride has to be specified to work or get some vehicles that can handle wheelchairs. So that's 09/12/18 Page 23 of 29",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-07-11.pdf CityCouncil,2019-12-18,23,"City Council Workshop Workshop Report Management Partners - Personal reputation. - Community pride and confidence. Don't underestimate how important it is to a city manager to have a good working relationship with the city council. It has been reported that the relationship with the city council is the primary factor impacting a city manager's job satisfaction. Among the reasons for this are the following: - City councils are the source of formal performance feedback. Like almost everyone, positive feedback from supervisor(s) is very important. - City councils control the city manager's job security. - City councils determine the city manager's compensation. - City councils establish the city manager's ""parameters of success."" - City council support for the city manager, particularly during tough times, is of tremendous value. Recommended Practices: So while the stakes are high and the challenges significant, there are a variety of ""best practices"" and techniques that can improve the odds of your individual success as a mayor or councilmember, as well as the success of the city council and city as a whole. The following are offered as ideas to consider in your efforts to establish and maintain a strong and effective working relationship with your city manager: Recognize that you are now ""different"" than before you were elected (and more than you may realize): You are now viewed as a community/city leader and what you do and say can have a much greater impact. Your comments will now be viewed as representing ""the city."" What you do and say will also be more closely scrutinized. You should be aware that the city staff will view you much differently now that you are one of the organization's leaders. Even an offhand comment can be viewed as a directive for action. So even though you may not view yourself any differently than before you were elected, don't underestimate to what degree others are viewing you differently. 3 - 17",CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-03-01,23,"(16-117) Consider Directing the City Manager to Revise the Mix-Use Zoning Designation and Related Policies to Aid Retention of Beneficial Commercial Uses Citywide. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) Vice Mayor Matarrese made brief comments on his referral. Read a letter from Mr. DeLap, former harbor master, opposing the Bay West development of high density housing; stated the State gives high priority to preserving recreational and boating use of the shoreline: Peter Brand, Alameda. Expressed support of Alameda Marinas and marine services: Joseph Woodard, Alameda. Provided a petition of Barnhill Marina neighbors; urged support of maintaining marina services: Bill Cox, Alameda. Urged support of Alameda's coast; stated the waterways are an asset: George Lythcott, Alameda. Stated that he is concerned about the long term outlook of the boating community; urged support of maintaining Alameda's maritime community: Grant Hayes, Alameda. Showed a map; expressed support of maritime services; proposed expansion of the area to retail and recreation: Nancy Hird, Alameda. Expressed support of the marinas and services: Paul Mueller, Alameda. Stated Alameda's northern waterfront could have other opportunities and bring in larger boats if dredged; urged Council to maintain the waterfront for deep water boating uses: Andy McKinley, Alameda. Stated that he opposes the residential development at Clement Street: Dan Goldfield, Alameda Aikikai. Expressed concern about loss of resources at Alameda Marina; stated that she is opposed to development: Maggie Sabovich, Pacific Inter-Club Yacht Association. Stated that she opposes the referral if it seeks to change the multi-family overlay zone: Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope. Stated his children benefit from the Aikido dojo; he does not want more development in the Clement Street area: Matt Langwerowski, Alameda. Stated the light industry maritime businesses bolsters the Alameda economy as it is active worldwide; urged preservation of the marina and businesses: Liz Taylor, Alameda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf CityCouncil,2008-02-19,23,"Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that balancing is being done at the expense of the General Fund reserve. The Finance Director stated revenues were reduced by $4 million; expenditure reductions totaled $3 million; the difference will be funded by the General Fund reserve money that is not spent at the end of the year would go into the General Fund reserve. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (08-073 CC) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the period ending September 30, 2007. The Finance Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson requested that sales tax figures be posted to the website; stated services are hurt by the fact that residents spend money outside of Alameda. The Finance Director stated the per-capita comparison can be posted to the website. Mayor Johnson questioned how much more money would be generated if Alameda had a per-capita similar to the City of Fremont. The Finance Director stated sales tax revenue would double and provide $4 million. Councilmember Gilmore stated $4 million is the amount of the gap. Mayor Johnson stated Development Services has enabled the City to stay even; the City will lose most of the auto sales tax. The Finance Director stated hopefully new businesses will replace the loss. Councilmember deHaan stated the third quarter had $1.3 million in sales tax revenue; the City is on the verge of bringing in more retail; the Alameda Towne Centre is approximately 60% filled; there will not be a lot of change retail is taking the biggest [economic] hit; looking toward the future is important. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 11 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission February 19, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf CityCouncil,2021-12-21,23,"information. (21-869) Councilmember Daysog discussed a hiring ceremony for three new APD Officers and the memorial for Supervisor Wilma Chan; urged Alamedans to visit City Hall at night to see the holiday tree. (21-870) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined an Association for Bay Area Governments Regional Planning Committee meeting; discussed ribbon cuttings for an art installation and the Little Ice Rink at Alameda Point; outlined a joint meeting of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and Mayors of Alameda County related to funding homelessness; discussed distribution of Target gift cards for families in the Alameda Housing Authority Head Start program. (21-871) Councilmember Herrera Spencer made an announcement about the West End Arts District's mural grand opening. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:01 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council December 21, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-16,23,"The Community Development Director responded there is some urgency around the fact that the City currently does not have a single bed to offer unhoused community members; stated staff has been trying to move expeditiously in order to create an opportunity to have individuals housed, particularly due to the upcoming poor weather months; staffs goal is to have the houses made available for move-in; one house is closer to move-in ready than the others. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired which house is closest to being move-in ready, to which the Community Development Director responded one of the two Big Whites. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the homes have recently became vacant; inquired the average rent received by the City for the properties. The Community Development Director responded the Big Whites are $2,800 per month and about $80,000 per year; stated only one is currently in a rentable condition. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Council has received complaints from current renters in the Big Whites related to poor maintenance of the homes; one commenter has recommended a reduction in rent; inquired whether the City would consider a reduction in rent for current residents. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council may conduct discussions related to rent reduction. The City Attorney responded that he assumes Councilmember Herrera Spencer is asking the question to understand the amount of rent being foregone for the program opportunity; inquired whether the intent is assumed correctly, to which Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the affirmative. The City Attorney stated as long as the Councilmember is considering the amount of rent being foregone as part of analysis, minimal questioning complys with the Brown Act. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether asking about possibly reducing current tenant rent is permissible. The City Attorney stated that he is assuming Councilmembers are trying to understand how much rent revenue is at stake in approving the matter. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated a speaker raised the concern; there have been comments online about reduced revenue, which causes questions about the program affordability. The City Attorney stated that he advises questions be tailored to how revenues will be Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 16, 2021 12",CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf CityCouncil,2008-12-02,23,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMEN'T AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING TUESDAY - -DECEMBER 2, 2008- -7:00 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:12 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Board Members deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (08-496) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8) ; Property: Alameda Point; Negotiating parties City, ARRA and SunCal Under negotiations: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that Council/Board Members were briefed on real property negotiation aspects; no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 7:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority December 2, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-12-02.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2019-03-13,23,"ITEM 3-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, March 13, 2019, 6:30 PM Jenn Barrett: I also wanted to nominate Leslie. Leslie Morrison: Wow. What does the position of vice chair entail? Jenn Barrett: So, sorry. I'm sorry we didn't go over this further. So the vice chair basically would support the chair. If the chair is unable to attend a meeting, the vice chair steps in. If we get an email about a concern, Laurie gets an email about a concern, for instance, we had the woman who was stranded because her wheelchair didn't work anymore and so Laurie will reach out to the chair, but then if she needs additional assistance with that, she'll reach out to the vice chair as well. So it's basically just assisting with anything that the chair might need help with or that Laurie wants quick attention to. Say, like when the Census meeting occurred, because she didn't have much time to talk to Beth, she also included me in the email to see if either of us could attend. Leslie Morrison: And it's a one year term? Jenn Barrett: Yes. Both are one year terms. Leslie Morrison: Okay, I'll throw my hat in. Jenn Barrett: Okay. Are there any other nominations? Okay, so we will So just to be clear, if there's no second of a nomination are they still valid? Liz Acord: So I think what we would want to do is consider Commissioner Brillinger's self nomination as a motion and then call for a second and then approval and then if that motion were to fail, move on to the second motion. Jenn Barrett: Okay, thank you. Leslie Morrison: It just seems odd to me. That may be procedural, but you have two people who have been nominated, SO.. Liz Acord: I apologize, I am trying to navigate this the best that I can. I think what the commission could also do is make a separate and third motion if you will to say, ""I will nominate. "" For example, you could say, ""I will nominate X and so move,"" and then you could call for a second on that motion. Failing having any instructions provided to me in the 11th hour before this meeting, that's what I would see happening. Susan Deutsch: Can we make a motion to have some sort of a vote that's private? Leslie Morrison: I don't think that this is a motion, this is a nomination. I think that we're confusing the terms. So, you have vacant positions and you have people that are nominated and then you call for a vote of the people that have been nominated. It's different than a motion. Liz Acord: Okay. 03/13/19 Page 23 of 28",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2019-03-13.pdf OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-04-05,23,"Commissioner Reid stated the Mayor specifically recognized that the speaker had reached out to City Council prior to the meeting, so the speaker was planned, which is fine, but argues that the public did not truly have an opportunity to weigh in; the Brown Act asks ample time be ensured for people to weigh in; five minutes is not an ample amount of time and no other member of the public came forward; there was no way anyone knew besides the Council and the speaker who knew SB 271 was going to be mentioned or that the legislative agenda was going to be pulled and new information was going to be introduced; it should have been agendized and discussed properly. Commissioner LoPilato stated that she wants to underscore there is nothing nefarious about a community member, lobbyist or advocate reaching out to the Council; typically, how that process might work is a person would reach out after seeing the draft ordinance or resolution; the fact the speaker reached out to Council is not uncommon or nefarious, it is engagement; with this issue, it was a distinction without a difference because ultimately, once that legislative agenda was passed, whether SB 271 was listed on it or not, it fell under public safety and criminal justice reform, which was passed and nobody would have had a chance to weigh in on it anyway because that gives the guidance to the City Manager to decide what happens to bills; based on the way the process for this particular issue unfolds, there is no opportunity to weigh in on each bill, it is just not how the process works; if the Commission wants to make another recommendation some day in some other context that it should work differently, then that is something to explore. Vice Chair Shabazz thanked Mr. Garfinkle for bringing the issue to the Commission; stated there are concerns and interests in a couple different areas. Vice Chair Shabazz moved approval of finding the complaint unfounded consistent with the recommendation of the City's Special Counsel. Commissioner Reid stated in no way is she suggesting that there was anything nefarious at all; she does believe the public is entitled to transparency and to be able to weigh in; if the process is that the City Manager looks at the legislative agenda and decides what to support, it opens up the question of why the legislative agenda was pulled and specific bills were added; it was somehow out of line; there was no way for the public to have known the bills were going to be discussed; the speaker was a lobbyist and no other members of the public commented. Chair Tilos stated when deciding the issue, he feels members are going too deep into the actual bill versus whether it was noticed and the public was able to comment; it should not matter whether the speaker was a lobbyist or a community member; the legislative agenda is a long list of things; he agrees with Commissioner Chen that it will just take a lot of work; he concurs with Commissioner LoPilato's roadmap framework and that it is difficult to navigate 2000 bills individually; there is this over guiding principle of how the City is going to be on the decisions; the specifics of the bills and what transpired in the meeting should not matter, the transparency piece is important. Commissioner Reid stated she agrees with Chair Tilos; it does not matter what the bill is, Meeting of the Open Government Commission April 5, 2021 23",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-04-05.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-10,23,"Barbara Thomas, Alameda. Expressed concern over traffic, parking and the water table: Suzanne Diers, Alameda. Discussed the City budget; urged a special tax district be created: Robert Matz, Alameda. *** (18-410) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining item [referral: paragraph no. 18-412]; 12 speaker slips remain on the current item. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of hearing the referral. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Council has to go back into closed session after the open session. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Urged approval of the project; outlined project benefits: Doff Fournier. Stated the project is happening because of the multi-family overlay; the project is one of the best waterfront projects and will be part of the established neighborhood where she lives: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates. Stated the plan is great and should be approved; she is really excited about the boatyard and dockyard and fears the marina will be untenable without the project; urged approval: Kathi Fournier, Alameda Marina Assistant Harbor Master. Stated since he was evicted, many boats have left; there are 48 boats now, but used to be 163; the dry storage is inadequate and should be doubled; longer than six months is needed to find an operator: Alan Hebert, Menlo Park. Outlined short term benefits; stated in the long term, new businesses will increase the housing deficit; the effect on affordable housing is in the EIR; read from the appendices: Bill Smith, Alameda. Discussed how the dry storage number was determined; stated there are currently 48 active sailors; versa docks would be available at no additional cost: Eileen Zedd, Alameda Marina. Urged Council to move forward on the project so the land does not become another vacant lot on Clement Avenue: Charles Souza, Alameda. Stated that she supports the project, which is one of the most challenging developments Alameda has had; outlined issues, which the developer has done a great job addressing Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 15 July 10, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf OpenGovernmentCommission,2015-02-02,23,"redrafted pretty easily to say that members cannot comment on items they are going to make a judicial decision on. The Assistant City Attorney stated this area of the law is murky; development plan in Alameda are legislative acts, not quasi-judicial, so the judicial rules would not apply; however, for a use permit, which is quasi-judicial, the point is well taken; on the other hand, courts recognize that elected and appointed officials are out in the community; part of being an elected official is listening to the community; the community wants to hear official's opinions on matters; there is a fine line between expressing interest and listening to people, but not showing improper bias; the line can be difficult to draw; drafting something may be difficult, but he will take a stab to try to address the issue more clearly. Commissioner Dieter requested the Assistant City Attorney to explain the last sentence: appointed policies bodies moreover may not take formal action nor undertake activities such as writing a letter that contradicts a policy or a position that the City Council has adopted or expressed. The Assistant City Attorney stated that he has seen situations were an advisory body takes formal action, such as writing a letter, that is contradictory to what the City Council has done; it cases the City and City Council some embarrassment; the idea is to put into written form that advisory bodies are not to do that; it is a policy decision; the language can be left or removed; he has seen it cause difficulty for a City Council in the past, so he put it in. In response to Commissioner Bonta's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the line is not always bright; a commission can express reservation about a City Council policy or action; however, the commission communicating in a formal way is what this is intended to say should not be done. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether it has ever happened in Alameda, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded that he does not know if it has happened in Alameda; stated that he is aware of it happening in other jurisdictions. Commissioner Dieter inquired whether writing a letter means writing a letter to the City Council, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded it would mean writing a letter to an outside agency for example. Commissioner Dieter stated the language should definitely say ""to an outside agency. "" The Assistant City Attorney responded the Section is not intended to prevent communication between a commission and the City Council; the language could be clearer. Vice Chair Foreman stated there should be something somewhere about how to remove people from commissions. Meeting of the Open Government Commission February 2, 2015 23",OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2016-11-01,23,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated doing so addresses the concern about Council interfering Council with a project that is going through the approval process. Councilmember Oddie stated Council interference should be everyone's concern. Councilmember Daysog stated the public should be able to discuss Bayport-Alameda Landing in its own study session. Mayor Spencer stated a motion is not needed to address remaining agenda items because Council already is hearing the referrals; a vote will be done at 11:00 p.m. to see if Council wants to continue. The City Manager continued the presentation on referrals. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to defer some of the items to the priority work session; some of the referrals should be done in a priority work session after the first of the year. Mayor Spencer stated there should be a vote on whether or not to proceed. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft left the dais at 10:34 p.m. and returned at 10:37 p.m. Spoke on Inclusionary Housing and Bayport-Alameda Landing [paragraph no. 16-576]: Stated there is a housing problem; new workforce homes are needed; market rate homes with large mortgages make it impossible for middle income workers to purchase homes: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda. Spoke on the Regulation and Taxation of Commercial Cannabis [paragraph no. 16-580]: Encouraged Council to explore the opportunities and options afforded to the City by updating regulations and potential taxation of commercial cannabis; stated cannabis will bring jobs and money to the community: Alex Seville, Attorney. Spoke on the Mixed-Use Zoning [paragraph no. 16-578]: Stated Alameda needs to build businesses, not retail type shops that do not support the tax base needed to support the City; Alameda Marina provides jobs and businesses; Alameda needs to support existing businesses: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council's preference is to go through each referral in order. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of following the direction of the referral and following staff's proposal to schedule a workshop in early 2017. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf CityCouncil,2015-10-20,23,"ships out of the Port of San Francisco is a daunting task and not realistic in the next 10 years; the site is not in the Enterprise Zone, which provides the proper buffer between the neighborhood and the working waterfront; he would hate to lose the tenant for something doable for the next 10 years. Councilmember Daysog requested clarification on the sublease with Matson; inquired whether any tenant can go into Building 23 after Matson vacates it, to which the Economic Development Division Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie stated Matson might want to stay in Building 23; that he has a hard time denying a lease to someone that has been operating without any problems. Mayor Spencer stated there have been problems; complaints about the containers. Councilmember Oddie stated that he has not heard complaints; he thought steps were taken to alleviate concerns. Mayor Spencer inquired if the containers could be stored between the two buildings to be less visible. The Economic Development Division Manager responded in the negative; stated Matson indicated the items inside need to be accessible. *** (15-628) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the meeting past 11:00 p.m. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval [of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m.] Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the fence will help mitigate; if there is a problem, he would like to be able to come back and adjust provisions; the most important thing is no using the site for logistics, not stacking containers, counting truck trips and limiting to 36. Mayor Spencer stated the containers need to be as invisible as possible. Councilmember Oddie confirmed that he would second the amended motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 October 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf CityCouncil,2009-01-06,23,"Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 12:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission January 6, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf PlanningBoard,2005-02-28,23,"new commercial, industrial, or municipal project; because it only addressed the community center. He spoke with the City Attorney regarding Condition 27 (""hold harmless""), and understood that it meant that if the application were to be approved, and someone sued the City stating that the approval was wrong, the applicant would pay for the defense. That indemnification did not relate to any other issues not related to this approval. M/S Kohlstrand/Lynch to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-09 to approve a Design Review and Planned Development for the construction of a two-story 6,000 square foot community building, four 16-car garages, facade changes to existing apartment buildings, and other improvements at the Harbor Island Apartments site. AYES - 4 (Piziali absent); NOES - 2 (Cook, Mariani); ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 23 February 28, 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-02-28.pdf CityCouncil,2021-05-18,23,"Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 May 18, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-05-18.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-30,23,"""streamline and expedite permits for businesses"" on page 27; the process is an ongoing issue for businesses; people of color and women are not included under the list in Section LU-11 on page 27; the Section needs to include people of color and women; the list should be alphabetically; people of color are a historically marginalized population; she is saddened to see the exclusions; the ""partnerships"" should be listed alphabetically; photos included throughout the General Plan are mostly white people;, she is saddened to see the images. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not disagree with Councilmember Herrera Spencer regarding Section LU-11; she does not think the list was meant to be inclusive or exclusive; the Section states: ""interventions that break down barriers to employment pre-historically marginalized populations such as: youth, seniors, people with disabilities. stated that she would have added unhoused individuals to the list; the term ""such as"" expands the definition; she would like to ensure the recommendations provided by Councilmember Knox White would not hamper the Recreation and Parks Department's ability to pursue outside funding; since Council has not yet approved the project, the actions listed in the General Plan seem to be jumping ahead. The Recreation and Parks Director stated that she does not think adding the term ""support"" would hamper either being lead agency or partner on a grant; the term change still shows the importance to the City; adding the term is fine. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether removing the actions causes any difficulty. The Recreation and Parks Director stated that she has come to the discussion late and would like time to read the details and provide an accurate answer. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the recommendations provided should be considered to have staff look at all the potential ramifications and implications; staff should report back to Council. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff can report back to Council; the list helps identify high priority matters; there is a way to re-write the policy and indicate support for efforts with partners; staff can list facilitation of seeking funding or pursue mapping, trash removal, signage, oil spill, public access structure and additional items; the General Plan is a policy level document; there has not been much Council discussion about the project; the General Plan takes a good idea and puts it out in the open. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the section is listed as ""Conservation Climate Action Element;"" Council has held discussions about conservation and climate action; the description includes: ""protecting and restoring natural habitats to support bio-diversity and to prepare for climate change is a key goal of the General Plan;"" maps which establish a biological inventory should be done; expressed support for funding being acquired to help with oil spill booms and protection of sensitive habitat areas affected by oil spills; proposed language can be modified; however, she would like to give the Recreation and Parks Director and Planning, Building and Transportation Director the opportunity to confirm; inquired whether Council can provide direction to staff. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he will need to know whether Council is adopting the General Plan and asking staff to come back with potential revisions; staff will return after working through tribal language with the Planning Board; the Transportation Appendix will be worked on with the Transportation Commission; it will be easiest if the General Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 30, 2021 23",CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf CityCouncil,2018-06-05,23,"to be a next step for non-payment; in other instances, a lien is placed on the property. The Community Development Director stated the matter will be added to the list for December. (18-342) Recommendation to Provide Direction on Potential Revenue Measures to Submit to Voters for the November 6, 2018 General Election. The Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding Encinal Avenue repairs, the Public Works Director responded the street is owned and maintained by Caltrans. Mayor Spencer stated a plan is needed to get Caltrans to maintain the road; she will have trouble supporting other requests until said plan is done. The Public Works Director continued the presentation. Councilmember Matarrese inquired why the slide indicates emergency response rather than seismic repair, to which the Public Works Director responded the wording could be changed and continued the presentation. *** (18-343) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the referrals. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the remaining items. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5. Expressed support for the infrastructure bond; stated that he is not too keen on the sales tax measure; the infrastructure bond can specifically address climate change adaptation issues; expressed concern over the language ""other;"" stated there is already a long list that adds up to about $200 million; Council is not going to need flexibility to deal with other things; as far as Alameda Point, the potable water upgrade should be funded; money can be recouped through Developer Impact Fees at a later time without conflicting with the fiscal neutrality policy; the priority should be streets and sidewalks; the word potholes is not needed; storm drain pumping stations should be called out; sea level rise is not going to be the City's first problem; the Houston area flooding was not sea level rise; climate change and parks should be prioritized: Richard Bangert, Alameda. Mayor Spencer requested clarification regarding the bond measure timeline. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 June 5, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf CityCouncil,2007-06-19,23,"contributions i stated all Board Members are due paying members and contribute to special projects. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether solicitations are sent to major employers in the City. Ms. Coler-Dark responded said solicitations were tried; nothing was received. Ms. Dileo stated a big corporate effort has not been made because a great amount of time has been given to special exhibits and flood repair; past solicitation efforts have not been successful. Mayor Johnson stated that she received a Meyers House brochure; the brochure contained a membership form but no request for solicitation. Councilmember Gilmore stated that requests for solicitation should be included in mailers. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is supportive of a Cultural Arts Program; the City has a Public Arts Fund with a balance of $42,789; developers are required to either provide Public Art or pay in lieu fees; 25% is available for programs $10,000 could be used for something other than public art and has not been dispersed; seeds are there for a Cultural Arts Program; the City should financially support the Museum; he would support keeping the current level of the Museum's subsidy a 10% cut would cause the Museum to go away; the Museum needs help; there should be a condition requiring the establishment of a business plan that has an aggressive fundraising plan. Mayor Johnson stated that the City could help by offering a donation match; other non-profit organizations are in need of funding also; the Museum has very little money in donations. Councilmember Gilmore stated Museum support is important an agreement is needed going forward; the Museum needs a business and fundraising plan for long-term issues. the Museum occupies a space that could be a retail space; rents will go up as Park Street improves; the City can help with providing resources for the business and fundraising plan and with finding another space; the City is not asking the Museum to do anything different than other non-profits: museums should pull resources together for a fundraiser and split the proceeds the Museum needs to approach the operation more like a business; long-term strategic planning is Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 12 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 19, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf CityCouncil,2007-09-11,23,"Principal Property Tax Payers Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Taxpayer Taxable Value Alameda Real Estate Investment $ 218,524,744 KW Alameda, LLC $ 87,291,200 Wind River Systems, Inc. $ 60,593,386 Harsch Investment Realty, LLC $ 50,486,980 Bayport Alameda Associates, LLC $ 49,815,105 Limar Realty Corp #13 and Limar $ 31,469,388 Ballena Village, LLC $ 28,365,760 SRM-PCCP Harbor Associates, LLC $ 26,823,831 South Shore Beach and Tennis Club $ 26,476,524 Woodstock Homes Corporation $ 26,011,914 Source: FY 2006-07 County Assessor data, MuniServices, LLC 15 Largest Employers 2006 Employer Number of Employees Alameda Unified School District 1,000 Abbott Diabetes Care Inc 671 City of Alameda 626 Alameda Hospital 600 College of Alameda 472 Safeway Stores 345 Wind River Systems 339 Kaiser Foundation Health Plan 252 Ut Starcom Inc. 223 Celera Diagnostics LLC 215 Source (2006-07): MuniServices, LLC Results based on direct correspondence with city's local businesses 16 8",CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf CityCouncil,2015-02-17,23,"Vice Mayor/Agency Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (15-111 CC) Recommendation to Accept the Treasury Report for the Quarter Ending December 31, 2014. The Interim Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor/Chair Spencer noted the City Treasurer reviewed the report and found it complies with the investment policy established. Councilmember/Agency Member Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (15-112 CC/15-005 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Second Quarter Financial Report for the Period Ending December 31, 2014. The Interim Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor/Chair Spencer noted the City Treasurer reviewed the report and found it complies with the investment policy established. Councilmember/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember/Agency Member Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission February 17, 2015 2",CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf CityCouncil,2021-01-05,23,"the resolution and introduction of the ordinance]. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the location is ideal for commercial and should be zoned mixed use; discussed Bayport; expressed support for a smaller scale neighborhood serving commercial site. Councilmember Spencer inquired whether the matter requires three votes to pass with the location being City property. The City Attorney responded Council is not voting on property disposition; stated the actions being taken are to rezone, which requires three votes. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: No; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (21-018) The City Manager encouraged use of the vaccine as it becomes available; discussed an extension of time requested by the policing subcommittees due to the holidays; stated a report back to Council is due the week of January 20th; a public engagement process is anticipated; the matter is scheduled to be on a Council meeting in March to allow time for public engagement; three separate meetings are available for public viewing; announced the APD armored vehicle matter will return for Council discussion. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (21-019) Consider Establishing a New Methodology by which the Number of Housing Units are Calculated for Parcels Zoned C-2-PD (Central Business District with Planned Development Overlay). (Councilmember Daysog). Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (21-020) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she and Councilmember Spencer attended the 100th anniversary celebration for the Alameda Rotary Club via Zoom; discussed the christening of Saildrone's Surveyor SD-1200. (21-021) Vice Mayor Vella announced that she attended an Alameda County Lead Abatement Board meeting; stated there is concern about delaying lead testing children Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 January 5, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2017-05-16,23,"and Mayor Spencer - 2. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (17-328) Consider Directing Staff to Create a ""Straws on Request"" Ordinance. Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:38 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 May 16, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf CityCouncil,2006-10-17,23,"with the studies. Councilmember Matarrese stated funds need to be allocated for the model : ; inquired whether the policies need to be tested using the new model. The City Engineer responded Council would need to adopt the policies in order to have a General Plan amendment; the traffic analysis needs to be done if policies are adopted. The Public Works Director stated Council would be giving direction to begin the analysis of the policies as well as the previous policies; information would come back to Council through the Planning Board and the Transportation Commission with a recommendation as to whether or not there are certain intersections that Council may want to accept a higher level of service because of the recognition of the encouragement of pedestrian or bicycle access or transit; Council would be allocating the money to begin the analysis. louncilmember Matarrese stated the policies are not policies but are a test suit of data or parameters that are going to be run through a model to see what happens at the end of the model. The Public Works Director stated the policies might eventually become the approved policies. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether currently the policies are not policies, to which the Pubic Works Director responded in the affirmative. The Transportation Commission Chair stated the Transportation Commission's intent is that the policies are specific policies that would be tested before the policies are being adopted; the Transportation Commission was hopeful that the Council would accept the policies as guidelines for reviewing EIRs. Councilmember Matarrese stated he wished to modify his motion. The Public Works Director stated the current General Plan needs to be used to review the EIR; the policies could not be used as guidelines if the policies are not consistent with the General Plan. Mayor Johnson stated the next step would be to amend the General Plan if Council likes the way the policies work. The Public Works Director stated the process would be to amend the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 October 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf CityCouncil,2005-06-07,23,"Acting City Manager to determine where an appropriate one-stop permit center could be; funding has been set aside. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is an improvement in the vver-the-counter permit processing. The Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated front line staff upgrades have freed up Planners' time. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether goals could be met with streamlined staffing, to which the Building Official responded in the affirmative. The Development Services Director gave a Power Point presentation on the Development Services Department, CIC and ARRA budget. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there would be a Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) grant available for the Phase 2 of the Park and Webster Streets Streetscape Projects next year, to which the Development Services Director responded that MTC believes the City would be a better candidate once the project has been completed. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the City would apply for grant funding next year, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much the City's match would be. The Development Services Director responded that the formula criteria is not known; stated that a number of funding options have been identified, such as supplemental tax increment payments or unused redevelopment bond money earmarked for the Library project. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that it is important to ensure that money is budgeted for Phase 2 next year. Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that the City needs to be very careful in Fiscal Year 2005-061 what happens in the coming year will ripple into the following years; stated there are a lot of committed projects. The Development Services Director concurred with Commissioner/Boaró Member Daysog; stated that the Development Services Department is anticipating the resignation of a division director mid year; the position will not be filled; a number of the Development Services Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 8 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf CityCouncil,2020-03-03,23,"down payment to PERS for unfunded liabilities, additional discretionary payments, and 25% paid to the 115 Trust. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Finance Director stated the payment is a stabilization cash flow security. Expressed support for the Sustainability and Resilience Manager position; discussed climate issues underpinning every City action: Christy Cannon, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA). Stated funding a climate position is very important to bridge silos between departments: Ruth Abbe, CASA. Expressed support for the Resilience Manager position; discussed qualifications: Ingrid Ballmann, CASA. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Finance Director stated the only number being requested to appropriate are not associated with the numbers listed on Slide 12; Slide 13 shows actual cash deposited with PERS and PARS as of January; money has not yet been sent to the agencies. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the $37 million set aside since inception will be increased by $7.4 million, which some other number could change. The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the appropriation before Council is $7.3 million; noted a contribution is not likely to occur until the mid-cycle revisions to the policy; stated a potentially additional $5.3 million is estimated, but the actual number is yet to be known. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City's payments are based on the PERS projected return on investments; stated the stock market has been difficult for the last couple weeks due to the impacts of Coronavirus; inquired the expected calculated payments. The City Manager stated staff has met with a financial consultant who is reviewing the City's policy and will report before study sessions; there will be more time in May to respond specifically; there is a 20-year discount rate to address increases and downturns; there is a lot of volatility now; the consultant will be able to answer more questions regarding the impact of future liability. The Finance Director stated PERS valuations are always 2 years behind; should PERS happen to finish the fiscal year with a negative return or something lower than 7%, the City will not realize an additional liability until 2 years from now; the liability can be planned for; the City Manager is looking into a variety of ways to mitigate any future or existing unfunded liabilities. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 March 3, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-19,23,"month, and 50% rent conversion to grants for businesses showing they retained 75% of jobs over a one-year period; stated that he is struggling with the idea that the goal is to charge people for land and buildings which are unable to be used or occupied; not every business will be able to qualify for the program; Council can provide direction and information related to the deferral program; some businesses will open in the next 2 to 6 weeks; Council should not be involved with every program decision; expressed concern about the criteria reflecting Council selecting businesses which are important or generating the most money; business communities are made of different sizes and all are important; Council should help solve the problem and provide support. Councilmember Oddie expressed support for Vice Mayor Knox White's comments; stated the City should be more lenient with businesses which have been shut down; the cap should be three months; the payments can be extended out; the cap should be $300,000; the program should be fair to all. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for extending the cap beyond three months; stated recovery may not happen until the end of 2021; stated should shelter in place orders be lifted soon, demand will still be tepid; the timeline can be between 3 to 18 months. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the original cap of three months could be considered and revisited if needed; stated recovery might happen sooner than anticipated; Council does not currently know the magnitude and duration of the issue, but can come up with a reasonable solution which can be revisited if needed. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's comments. Councilmember Vella stated that she would like clarification or a suggestion of an overall cap; expressed support for the item returning if the cap is met; noted portions of businesses could be shut down, while other portions function; expressed support for looking at each businesses' resiliency plan; inquired how the total number of qualifying employees was calculated. The Assistant Community Development Director responded staff looked at other landlord programs; stated a few tenants have multiple locations; some tenants have multiple buildings. Councilmember Vella stated that she would lower the employee cap to 25 or more. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a cap on the amount of rent has been decided. Councilmember Oddie expressed concern about the amount being abated versus deferred; expressed support for the cap to be $300,000; then, a report should be brought to Council; stated more can be done if needed in three months; inquired whether any tenants with under 25 employees which may qualify for the program. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 14 May 19, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-19.pdf CityCouncil,2020-09-01,23,"COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) TUESDAY--SEPTEMBER - 1, 2020--6:59 P.M. Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:32 p.m. and Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.] Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice Mayor/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*20-555 CC/20-023 SACIC) Minutes of the Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting Held on July 7, 2020. Approved. (*20-556 CC/20-024 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Third Quarter Financial Report for the Period Ending March 31, 2020. Accepted. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency 1 to the Community Improvement Commission September 1, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-09-01.pdf CityCouncil,2019-10-15,23,"need funding; stated this is a good opportunity for a prioritization discussion; the discussion should begin with the Recreation and Parks Commission; there are no plans for taking down Building 29. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the item should be heard by the Recreation and Parks Commission first. Councilmember Oddie responded as long as there is a specific date; Item 6 of the report should not be taken out, but can be listed as potential demolition; inquired when the priority session would occur. The Recreation and Parks Director responded the Commission can hear the item in December; stated based on the conversation, the item can be brought back to Council in January or February. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the direction to staff is sufficient. Councilmember Vella responded in the affirmative; stated a parallel track exists if a community group is willing to work on the project. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated those interested can reach out to the Recreation and Parks Director. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 October 15, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-10-15.pdf CityCouncil,2019-09-03,23,"Stated the Alameda Progressives supports extending the protections that have been fought for: Cheri Johansen, Alameda Progressives. Stated that she strongly supports the ordinance; discussed Assembly Bill (AB) 686: Madeline Howard, Western Center on Law and Poverty. Expressed support for the ordinance; urged approval: Lana Rishina, Alameda. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether immigration status can be included in the language, to which the City Attorney responded said status is fully protected by State law. Councilmember Oddie expressed support for the item. Councilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the public speakers' question can be answered by the City Attorney. The City Attorney responded a landlord can legitimately go into a unit to document damage. Councilmember Daysog stated the City of San Jose passed a similar ordinance in the past month; there are certain provisions included related to a fix-it period; discussed delaying the ordinance for 60-days. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the ordinance requires a second reading; there is 30 days for landlord education; the prohibitions listed in the ordinance are things landlords should know. Vice Mayor Knox White stated it would be 45 days before the ordinance goes into effect. Councilmember Vella stated that she is not inclined to add another 15 days. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he is a fan of education and conversation. Councilmember Daysog expressed concern for bureaucratic HUD standards causing smaller landlords not to be involved with the program; outlined HUD standards. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated workshops will be scheduled in September and October; staff can be asked to provide more information. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 3, 2019 21",CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf CityCouncil,2021-04-20,23,"Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for exploring other options, including the acquisition of land. Councilmember Daysog stated Sherman Street is a natural funnel; the design requires people to use Paru or Morton Streets; cars still need to funnel out of the Gold Coast to get to the Tube through Marina Village; the alternative design does not accomplish doing so. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated she disagrees that the changes are minor; the resolution should have articulated that Council is adding four roundabouts as well as closing a street. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there will be a separate vote on the three roundabouts from the fourth. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded Council may vote on the entire project with just the three roundabouts with a second vote to add-in the fourth. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for two votes. The City Attorney stated that he has no objections to how the Council wishes to perform the vote; noted the resolution will need to be modified if the Council only approves three roundabouts. Councilmember Knox White stated that his motion stands; he is happy to acknowledge that Councilmember Daysog supports three of the four roundabouts, but will vote no based on the fourth roundabout. Councilmember Daysog stated the problem is that Sherman Street is a natural corridor to get people out of the Gold Coast to Marina Village; he would prefer separate votes. On the call for the questions, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. (21-275) Recommendation to Accept the Report on the Long-Term Financial Forecast for the General Fund and Special Revenue Funds. James Morris, Urban Futures Inc., gave a Power Point presentation. Stated looking at long-term investment and value allows better chances for putting together infrastructure in Alameda; what is best for local funding must be thought about; projections are long-term; businesses should not be shut down; discussed businesses in Alameda: Gerald Bryant, Alameda. Councilmember Knox White stated Council has discussed creating a forecast and identifying issues and strategies; inquired whether the model is the first step in the process and the next steps to identify the issues and potential solutions. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 April 20, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-04-20.pdf CityCouncil,2020-07-14,23,"MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED JULY 7, 2020 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -JULY 14, 2020--7:01 P.M. (20-491) This meeting was not held. Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Continued July 7, 2020 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 14, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-07-14.pdf CityCouncil,2008-01-15,23,"The Supervising Engineer stated that funding could be pursued once the project becomes part of the 2035 Transportation Plan. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to start working with the State to deed the land to the City for nothing. Mayor Johnson stated that she recalls a transit hub may not be the best place for a park-and-ride. Councilmember Matarrese stated that nothing prevents having multiple hubs; the West End does not have other places for a ride share lot. Councilmember Gilmore stated the staff report notes that the development of a sewer master plan and design to upgrade existing drainage improvements would need to be deferred. The Supervising Engineer stated staff time would be impacted; the bicycle master plan update could be delayed also. Councilmember Gilmore stated that said delays are not good trade- offs. The City Manager stated applying for grant funding can be done now. Mayor Johnson stated transit hub locations should be reviewed; the proposed area may be okay for a park-and-ride but not a transit hub; staff can apply for a park-and-ride grant and review the transit hub issue. The Supervising Engineer stated that staff is reviewing the idea of adding a queue jump lane at Webster Street as part of the Tinker Avenue Extension Project; the park-and-ride lot could tie into the Posey Tube entrance. Councilmember Matarrese noted that staff provided drawings that show configuration and aerial views. The City Manager stated that staff would update Council on the grant application. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS ( 08-035 ) Mayor Johnson stated the information that she requested under item 5-C should be posted to the website and should clarify that the General Fund non-contracted portion is used to pay for all Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 January 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf CityCouncil,2018-10-16,23,"The Economic Development Manager stated the discussion is for four dispensaries. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she wants to make sure two would be required to have delivery options. The Economic Development Manager inquired who supports four retail dispensaries, two of which can be delivery-only but two must offer delivery; inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella means four dispensaries with a storefront. Vice Mayor Vella responded four could be storefront, two of which must provide delivery; stated that she wants to mandate the second dispensary that comes in must provide delivery. Mayor Spencer stated there could be four storefront dispensaries, with a minimum of two dispensaries providing delivery. The Economic Development Manager stated Councilmember Oddie's request differs; one dispensary could be delivery only or retail. Councilmember Oddie stated the City needs at least two, all four dispensaries could have delivery. Mayor Spencer inquired if Councilmember Oddie is okay with four storefronts. Councilmember Oddie responded the City should have four storefronts, at least two of them need to have delivery. Councilmember Matarrese expressed concern with processes; stated those in favor of the item have a financial interest; he is in favor of having medicinal use, and labs; the process is not known until it actually occurs. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of staying the two ordinances until one business runs through the process. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of a substitute motion to move forward with additional delivery services, testing labs and medicinal only. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated many people do not want to register to get medicinal cannabis; the process is cumbersome; stated some people find it helpful to interact and discuss product options with consultants. Mayor Spencer suggested calling the question. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 October 16, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-10-16.pdf CityCouncil,2016-07-05,23,"and Additional Parking Common Areas as Part of the Original Premises at 1951 Monarch Street at Alameda Point. [In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c) - Existing Facilities.] Not heard. (16-346) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter 30 (Zoning Ordinance) to Facilitate the City's Ability to Disperse Public Art Funds, and Amend the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Public Art Fund Budget by $200,000 and Capital Improvement Projects Fund Budget by $100,000. [The Proposed Amendments are Categorically Exempt from the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations.] Not heard. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (16-347) The City Manager thanked Assemblymember Bonta for sponsoring Assembly Bill AB366 to enable the City to put a potential half-cent sales tax on the ballot. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (16-348) Consider Directing the City Manager to Initiate and Begin the Process with the Planning Board to Propose Revisions to the Ordinance and Code Sections Defining Alameda's Inclusionary Housing for Residential Development. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) Not heard. (16-349) Consider Directing the City Manager to Schedule a Priority Setting Work Session. (Mayor Spencer) Not heard. (16-350) Consider Directing the City Manager to Immediately Hold a City Council Workshop on the Final Phase of the Bayport-Alameda Landing Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)\Development Plan. (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (16-351) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Civil Service Board and Golf Commission. Mayor Spencer nominated Troy Hosmer to the Civil Service Board and Ron Taylor to the Golf Commission. (16-352) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended the Board of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf CityCouncil,2008-07-01,23,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -JULY 1, 2008- - -6:30 P. .M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (08-279) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54953.9 i Name of Case: Gabriel J. Hurst V. City of Alameda, et al. (08-280) Conference with Legal Counsel - Liability Claim (54956.95 ; Claimant Erin Astrup; Agency Claimed Against : City of Alameda. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Existing Litigation, Council gave direction to Legal Counsel regarding defense; regarding Liability, Council gave settlement direction to Legal Counsel. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council July 1, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf CityCouncil,2021-01-19,23,"49 Urged Council to vote against the proposed PSA; stated PSAs traditionally discourage many local construction firms from bidding; various polls of contractors have shown that PSAs can deter bidding; discussed an East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) survey; stated there should be no limitations on who can and cannot bid; discussed examples of restrictions in Concord; outlined PLAs increasing costs; stated should Council adopt a PSA, it should include local workers and companies that build quality projects: Joe Lubas, Alameda County Taxpayers Association. Stated that he is proud the City has a history of supporting working families; outlined his experience working with the Teamsters Union and the Economic Recovery Task Force; stated the recommendation is a well thought out and negotiated agreement which will help accomplish goals; the recommendation gives opportunity to use resources, put Alamedans to work, promote local businesses and deliver projects on-time; urged Council adopt the resolution: Doug Bloch, Alameda, Teamsters Union, Economic Recovery Task Force. Stated that he does not understand the language stabilization legislation or agreements or why government makes deals which create safe harbors by tipping the balance in favor of unions; outlined donations made by the Building Trades organization; stated that he does not see the City gaining anything; outlined projects requiring PSAs; stated that it would be more responsible for the City to not enter into protective kinds of agreements which strongly favor labor unions: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda. Expressed support for the matter; stated the policy is innovative; the policy is not just for working class people; the policy is a win for developers, levels the playing field and allows developers to know what is expected; the policy ensures the continuation of a skilled and trained workforce; language is included which ensures local workforce on projects; the language proposed by Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft can be included under Proposition 209; Council has the ability to reverse the policy on any given project; the Alameda County Building Trades Council is open to the proposed amendments: Andreas Cluver, Alameda County Building Trades Council. Stated young minority veterans will not be able to work under the proposed conditions; the exclusion is due to not being part of the Union Apprenticeship Program; the Associated Builders and Contractors would like the opportunity to work on projects in the community; questioned data collection from the current PLA; stated that she would like to know the status of the current PLA: Nicole Goehring, Associated Builders and Contractors. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the meeting end time has occurred. *** (21-054) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of extending the meeting an additional 15 minutes to allow for completion of public comment and deliberation. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: No; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. Councilmember Spencer moved approval of allowing public comment to be completed and concluding the meeting. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 19, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf CityCouncil,2016-06-21,23,"Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to modify the draft ordinance to include in the powers and duties of the Director language that incorporates compliance with the sections of the Charter that cover the declaration of emergency. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a timing issue; stated next item deals with workers compensation for volunteers; inquired whether the City is leaving itself exposed to potential liability; the City cannot approve the workers compensation resolution without the Disaster Council ordinance; urged Council to pass an ordinance tonight that would still suffice as a first reading. Vice Mayor Matarrese reiterated his motion is to modify the draft ordinance with addition of section 22-24.6 to reference the Charter provision 3-12 and 6-1 and 7-2(B). Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Mayor Spencer suggested an amendment to substitute the word ""appoint"" with ""nominate"" in section 2-24.e regarding the representatives of the Disaster Council. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the City Attorney stated a first reading of the ordinance could be done with the suggested modifications; restated the modifications. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to vote on the language separately. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved to call the question, which was seconded by Mayor Spencer and failed. Councilmember Oddie suggested adding Section 2-24.8 that the development of the emergency management plan shall be developed consistent with the Charter. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he is fine with the amendment. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested inserting a sentence that states ""this ordinance is deemed consistent with all relevant provisions of the Alameda City Charter"" so each and every instance of the Charter provisions does not need to be spelled out. Councilmember Daysog stated he prefers the Charter provisions be spelled out. Vice Mayor Matarrese concurred, stated the Charter provisions need to be outlined. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice votes: Ayes - Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, and Oddie - 4, Noes - Mayor Spencer - 1. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 21, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-06-21.pdf CityCouncil,2015-09-15,23,"Councilmember Daysog responded if the TOT is raised, he would describe the job as someone who could put together a marketing strategy and outreach to major employers in town to coordinate with the lodging and activities providers. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the staff report could review the additional impact on public safety and Public Works. The Interim City Manager stated staff would be presenting revenue measures in October which could include the TOT issue; the Community Development Director has been researching the matter and could address the issue further. The Community Development Director stated more resources are extremely helpful; one challenge is a TOT increase has to be placed on the ballot; an alternative is to create an assessment district comprised of the all the City's hotels which would form a Board and work with the City on how funds are expended; funds are dedicated to visitor serving uses; staff would recommend a consultant identified to address the specific assessment district; over 100 California cities have set up the assessment district. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the business districts, the Community Development Director stated the hotels would want to do the assessment in conjunction with restaurants, retailers, special events promoters, and other cross-promotional activities. Councilmember Daysog stated a hotel assessment district is a great idea; increasing taxes is hard; recommended that AirBnbs would be outside of the districts. The Community Development Director stated the vast majority of funds raised would be from the hotels; having a staff person for enforcement on AirBnbs would be difficult. Councilmember Oddie stated that he likes both ideas; some combination of increasing the TOT and funding from a visitor service assessment district could work. Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports moving forward and having a report return with different alternatives. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (15-563) Consider Directing the Interim City Manager to Draft Policies with Regard to AirBnb and Related Temporary Lodging Activities in Residential Homes and Zoning Districts. (Councilmember Daysog). Councilmember Daysog gave a brief Power Point presentation. Expressed support for the idea: Karen Bey, Alameda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 September 19, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-09-15.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-11-28,23,"ITEM 2-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, November 28, 2018, 6:30 PM These are usually on a Saturday. I think it was maybe three hours, three or four hours last year. Maybe we vote on whether we want to have a retreat, and then we can decide on whether or not we would like to cancel our January meeting. That sound good? Okay. So everyone in favor of having a retreat. Arnold Brillinger: I move that we have a retreat next year. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Right. Do we have a second? Jennifer Roloff: I second it. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: Okay. All in favor? All except Leslie Morrison: Aye. Leslie Morrison: I abstain, just because I've never been in the council, I don't really have an opinion either way for the vote. I would abstain. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: No problem. Okay, anyone in favor of canceling the January 9th meeting in order to have the retreat? Jennifer Roloff: OK, I'll move, or re-schedule the January meeting into a retreat. So that it's a retreat, okay. Is that weekend? Yeah, I would make that. Yeah, I move to do that. Susan Deutsch: I second Anto Aghapekian: I second [inaudible comments] Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: So we have a few options, sorry, for the retreat. It could be the 12th, the 26th, or February 9th, or February 16th. So we can agree on a date, hopefully, that most people are able to attend. We want to try to pick a date first. All: [short discussion on dates] Arnold Brillinger: Did we have someone second her motion? Susan Deutsch: Yes, I did. Acting Chair Jenn Barrett: This is for the cancellation of the Rescheduling, sorry. Thank you. Rescheduling of the meeting from January which is the 9th to one of the retreat weeks. But we just wanted to check and see if there was a weekend that worked with everyone. So if we want to have a motion, if someone would like to do a motion to reschedule, and then All: [More discussion of dates] 03/13/19 Page 23 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-11-28.pdf CityCouncil,2017-06-06,23,"Stated that he is not in favor of the ordinance; expressed concern for the landlord having to pay relocation fees on a Governmental Order to Vacate: Carl Searway, Alameda. Mayor Spencer questioned whether Council wants to make any changes to the language other than those made earlier. Mayor Spencer stated that she will not support changing the ordinance; Measure L1 passed with overwhelming support; Council worked very hard to fashion an ordinance that is a compromise; tenants and landlords did not receive everything they wanted; read the argument in favor of Measure L1; stated Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Oddie are refusing to honor their own words from the argument in favor of Measure L1. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned for families with small children and seniors; she supports just cause eviction; tenants are afraid to report needed repairs to landlords for fear of eviction; expressed concerns for mom and pop landlords regarding relocation fees; stated that she would like to sit down with renters and landlords to hear from both sides; she cannot support mass evictions; inquired whether the $20.00 business license fee is comparable to other cities. The Community Development Director responded the fee is a tax, which is very low. The Assistant City Manager noted changing the fee amount would require a vote of the people. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated housing is a very important basic right; she is open to suggestions from small mom and pop landlord regarding solutions on how to address the relocation fees; she does not advocate for the Housing Authority formula for calculating relocation fees. Vice Mayor Vella noted she is not a landlord; stated people are protesting the relocation fees and relocation fees have not changed; she is confused by people trying to make Ordinance 3148 a Charter amendment; a Charter amendment would make the changes that people are complaining about permanent; she has not heard a valid reason for a landlord to evict a tenant for no cause; fear can be a weapon used to prevent tenants from coming forward with habitability issues; she would like staff to review how other cities are doing the program fee; she is ready to move forward with the ordinance as amended. Councilmember Matarrese stated the just cause eviction is a complex dynamic for landlords and tenants; inquired whether Council could separate the vote on the ordinance and the program fee; stated the program fee should be lower and an even number; he will not support the ordinance, but will support the fee; would like to review outcomes and be ready to make adjustments based on outcomes. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 June 6, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-06,23,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) TUESDAY- JULY 6, 2021 - -6:59 P.M. Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 8:30 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.] Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*21-442 CC/21-16 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Third Quarter Financial Report for the Period Ending March 31, 2021. Accepted. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency 1 to the Community Improvement Commission July 6, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf CityCouncil,2010-07-20,23,"twenty-four hours is onerous. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the DDA is not before the Councilmembers/Boarc Members/Commissioners tonight; Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore's questions regarding the DDA are relevant; staff does not believe that anything in the last, best, and final offer has a cure or changes staff's recommendation. Mr. Brown stated at a previous meeting, the Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners discussed the intent to have a public hearing; the intent of the public hearing would be to discuss whether or not to continue with the ENA, not to deny the application; SunCal wants to work cooperatively with the City; the process needs a partner; the partner [City] has been difficult to come by over the last several months; SunCal wants to reestablish the relationship; that he is convinced that the relationship can be reestablished to move forward to discuss the important project issues and to have the EIR analyze every element of the project; at the end of the day, Councilmembers/ Board Members / Commissioners may vote to deny the project; staff may generate EIR alternatives that would be studied and would be the appropriate time to make judgments regarding the DDA, EIR, and project itself; rushing judgment on the application is inappropriate; SunCal would welcome dialogue with Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners and staff regarding the DDA and project itself; that he would like to engage in conversation with the Public Works Director regarding cost estimates and where the line would go; SunCal has a recommended bus rapid transit location in the plan which needs to be discussed; staff did not have enough time to ask questions regarding the DDA; SunCal has achieved the goal of having the DDA meet the requirements under the ENA. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff has not changed its recommendation in response to letters provided by Skip Miller; the Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners and staff have been discussing potentially denying the MOEA for the last two months; May 18th, June 1st, and July 7th staff reports discuss the matter; staff does not think the EIR would change any issues or recommendations noted tonight; findings for denial are related to the commitment to a transit oriented mixed-use development and comprehensive transportation development strategy that fully funds costs and operations, which is not something that an EIR would study. The Public Works Director stated SunCal had three years to address the bus rapid transit line; that he has tried to get SunCal to meet with WETA over the last year; he had to force SunCal to initiate dialogue with WETA; the issue is too little too late. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Mr. Brown stated that the last, best, and final offer is a complicated document that would take a long time Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 11 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 20, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-05,23,"Mr. Ernst responded the best guarantee to get Phase 3 built is to build Phase 2. Mayor Spencer inquired whether any type of bond can be done, to which Mr. Ernst responded in the negative. Stated that he supports the character of Mr. Ernst, his partners and the project: Mike Gaines, San Francisco. Stated Alameda Point Site A will revitalize the area and provide much needed housing; the Carpenter's Union fully supports the project: Daniel Gregg, Carpenter's Union. Stated Bay Ship & Yacht supports the project: Leslie Cameron, Bay Ship & Yacht. Stated the project will employee thousands of people; the project will provide housing in Alameda: Jim Summers, DeSilva Gates Construction. Stated that she supports the project; urged Council to move forward with the project: Kari Thompson, Alameda. Stated that he is concerned the project might not go through; the project not going through affects businesses in the area and housing; the developer has proved himself time and time again; it is not fair to question his integrity; penalizing the developer for things out of his control is really penalizing the businesses out at the Base and the people that have waited 20 years to have development: Michael McDonough, Alameda Chamber of Commerce. Stated that she supports the project; urged Council to move forward: Linda Asbury, West Alameda Business Association. Stated that he voted for the project on the Planning Board; the developer should put up a bond or letter of credit to assure Phase 3 will be done: Ron Curtis, Alameda. Strongly urged Council to support the project; stated the project will be a great employment opportunity for Alameda workers; development is a risky and uncertain business; if the project is not approved, the only certainty is the project will die and it will be years before anything moves forward: Andreas Cluver, Building Trades Council. Stated that he supports the project; the infrastructure will make the area better; the current infrastructure is not first world infrastructure for the businesses and residences out at Alameda Point: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative. Stated AUSD is the lowest funded District in the County; there is difficulty recruiting and retaining teachers; 45% of AUSD employees said they cannot afford to live in Alameda; the cost to place housing on the land AUSD already owns would be double the cost for the Site A project; urged Council to move forward with the project: Anne McKereghan, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-20,23,"Councilmember Oddie stated Council should go big on the item; noted other cities are providing the program; residents will go somewhere else should Alameda not participate; expressed support for closing Park Street from Buena Vista Avenue to San Jose Avenue every Friday and Saturday night and Webster Street from Buena Vista Avenue to Central Avenue; stated that he supports closing parking lots across the City where restaurants are near, such as South Shore and Alameda Landing; stated California Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) released an updated regulation allowing restaurants and bars to serve customers on sidewalks, parking lots, and streets; Alameda should not miss out on the program; expressed concern about eating next to vehicle exhaust. Councilmember Daysog stated residents are enthusiastic about the program; expressed support for the program; stated the program will help many businesses in commercial areas; expressed support for closing side streets such as Alameda Avenue between Park Street and Oak Street and Webb Avenue between Everett Street and Park Street. Councilmember Vella stated there are several street fairs scheduled during the summer on both Park Street and Webster Street; noted the events will not happen with regulations in place; expressed support for some form of special event street closure opportunity with closed off street sections for several days to allow for outdoor dining and safe foot traffic; stated there are opportunities in July or August; safe and clean bike parking and corrals will be needed; outdoor parking lots should be considered for Webster Street to allow business use. Vice Mayor Knox White the program should be implemented as fast as possible. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the program; expressed concern about closing Park Street and Webster Street on Friday and Saturday due to bus routes; stated those who rely on public transit need to be considered; the City can work with transit partners to see what can be done related to rerouting; expressed support for highlighting restaurants with an event and moving the item forward to become a permanent feature. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of endorsing the plan with direction to staff to look for opportunities to close streets in order to support business districts. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated that he would propose an evening closure to portions of Park Street and Webster Street on Friday and Saturday; expressed concern about having enough space to have proper social distancing; outlined other cities providing similar programs. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 23 May 19, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-20.pdf CityCouncil,2007-11-06,23,"Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Public Works Department is comfortable with the plan. The Housing Authority Executive Director responded the matter has been discussed with the Recreation and Parks Department, not Public Works. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the same issues were discussed in 2005; the City has a Vehicle Procurement Policy the next step is to get a Vehicle Use Policy; the vacant lot purchased from EBMUD would be designated as a park, which is a positive stepi the motion should include that the staff recommendation is accepted with the provision that the City develop a Vehicle Use Policy and that no more park space be taken from the site. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam stated that she does not think that this [parking lot] is the best use of the parkland; she will not support the staff recommendation. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion with direction that the City develop a Vehicle Use Policy and that no more park space be taken from the site. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Matarrese, Commissioner Torrey, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 4. Noes : Councilmember / Commissioner Tam - 1. Abstentions: Councilmember / Commissioner Gilmore - 1. [Note: Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore recused herself from the item because of the possible appearance of bias ] ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Housing 5 Authority Board of Commissioners November 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf CityCouncil,2017-06-20,23,"The City Manager clarified staff is currently starting outreach to the businesses and education to the public. Mayor Spencer stated doing so is not the referral process; staff should determine whether the current ordinance needs additional language or can be interpreted and enforced with the local businesses. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to create a straws on request ordinance with the appropriate additions, including the question of composting, straws for people who need them, and reviewing the current ordinance to see if it covers the intent. Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the motion includes other disposables or just straws. Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion includes plastic to go wares, as written in the body of the referral. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion with a friendly amendment to not have to wait to start outreach. Councilmember Matarrese concurred; stated that he heard the City Manager and the Interim Public Works Director state that the outreach is starting now regardless; he accepts the amendment. Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is the timeframe. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like a determination on which way staff is going to go before Council is out for recess in August; a new ordinance would take two meetings. The City Manager responded staff would only have one week to make the July 18th meeting. Councilmember Matarrese agrees the earliest practical meeting would be September. Mayor Spencer stated that she had requested September. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council is referring to a new ordinance or making amendments. Councilmember Matarrese stated he put that as an ""or"" in his motion; staff would return with the suggestion on which option is recommended. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the decision is up to staff. Councilmember Matarrese responded in the negative; stated staff would provide Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 20, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-06-20.pdf CityCouncil,2006-12-05,23,"project. In response to Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore, the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the DDA requires Catellus to come back to the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and CIC and amend the DDA if deviations are made to the tenanting strategy and leakage analysis; accountability is built into the DDA. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog inquired how a better quality apparel retailer mix is being addressed. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded focus is placed on retail categories and would be addressed at the staff quarterly meetings. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the projected amount per square foot for the retail area. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the performa currently shows a net of $12.01 per square foot; the net would be in the high $20.00'S per square foot when Catellus builds the improvements and enters into leases. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether footprints larger than 50,000 square feet are anticipated. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded there is nothing to cap the amount of square footage for any individual retail user. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the square footage could be as high as 225,000 square feet for one tenant. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded it would be highly unlikely to have one tenant at 225,000 square feet and the rest making up 75,000 square feet. louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the issue should come back to Council, the EDC, or Planning Board; Council did not have aspirations for the type of tenants at Bridgeside; Bed Bath and Beyond and Borders would go into the Towne Center most likely; overlap questions need to be addressed. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 12 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf CityCouncil,2017-07-18,23,"Mr. O'Neill responded he cannot speak for the franchisee. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the hours are in the UP or can the franchisee change the hours. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the franchisee can change the hours. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. O'Neill would be amenable to not extend the operating hours beyond the current operating hours. Mr. O'Neill responded he would prefer not to be limited to the hours. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. O'Neill is committing that cars would not block the sidewalk. Mr. O'Neill responded Big O' Tires would do their best to not block the sidewalk. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Big O' Tires is committing to not parking in the metered spaces. Mr. O'Neill responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie inquired why the City is not enforcing parking in the metered spaces and not paying, which is illegal. The City Attorney responded the question is for parking enforcement. Mayor Spencer inquired how staff encouraging the current operators to find a different location impacts the City's ability to clarify the terms of the UP for the new owners. The Assistant City Attorney responded staff encouraged the current operators to find a different location because of the success of the business which would be better suited in a larger location. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City telling the current operator to relocate when the matter had not even appeared before Council is legal. The Assistant City Attorney responded that he would be surprised if the Planning Board or City staff would have told an occupant to leave. The Assistant Community Development Director stated City staff never told the operators they need to leave; there were many public hearings and two and a half years of meetings with the operators being told that they are not complying with the UP conditions. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-02-14,23,"ITEM 2-A COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MINUTES OF Wednesday, February 14, 2018 6:30 p.m. Beth Kenny: And do you have any contact information for her? You said she's part of the Berkeley Commission? Arnold Brillinger: No. She gave a presentation at the Berkeley Commission. That's where I heard her. And also at the Berkeley Commission they had Eric, you remember Eric? Who came with us, to the sub-committees. And then I went to the Transportation Commission last week and I don't have a whole long list like I did last month, or last meeting. Because, mostly they had the same presentation from Victoria after a whole lot of other discussion on things that I didn't understand, that didn't really have to do with transportation. So their commission saw pretty much what we saw today. Beth Kenny: Great. Thank you, Arnold. I wanted to make an announcement. I don't know if any of you have been following, there's so much going on right now but, what's been going on in Congress with the ADA. Right now there is an attempt to undo parts of the ADA and make it so that the onus is not on the business to become compliant, it's the disabled person will have to let them know they intend to come to their business and give them sufficient time before any sort of claim can be filed for them not being accessible, or in compliance with the ADA. Beth Kenny: It would be a severe gutting of the ADA and I just want to keep it on everybody's radar. I read an excellent piece in The Washington Post, written by Tammy Duckworth, who is a disabled veteran congress person. I want to keep it on everybody's radar, and I think that it also made me really glad that we are getting the sub-committee going to look at making the businesses in Alameda more accessible and how we can go about that. That's my announcement. Anyone else have anything to say? Arnold Brillinger: Could you give us a little bit more information on what you just said about businesses in Alameda? Beth Kenny: Oh, I said that, after reading that article, what made me feel a little bit better was that we had already been talking about the issue of focusing in on how to get the businesses of Alameda to be more accessible. We were already thinking about that before reading this upsetting news. Jenn Barrett: Yeah. And I'm definitely excited to start working with our sub-committee on that. Jenny Linton: I have an announcement. Next month David and I will be going to a conference sponsored by The Arc of California, called the Developmental Disabilities Public Policy Conference, it's March 11th and 12th, Sunday and Monday. Followed on Tuesday morning by a visit with our legislator, so we'll report back after next month. David's my son. It's in Sacramento. Look forward to meeting our legislator. Beth Kenny: Yes, I look forward to hearing about it. Jenny Linton: Did we decide on whether we're going to even months or odd months for meetings? 02/14/18 Page 23 of 24",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-02-14.pdf CityCouncil,2014-12-02,23,"with a modification to be consistent with the Del Monte Master Plan ordinance which limits 380 units and maintain all the public benefits. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Abstentions: Councilmember Daysog - 1. (14-506) Resolution No. 14990, ""Approving and Adopting an Amendment to the City Of Alameda's Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2014-2015."" Adopted. The Assistant City Manager and Interim Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the additional 5% means increasing the reserve by 5%, to which the Interim Finance Direction responded in the affirmative. In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Manager stated contributions could go toward paying off long term unfunded liabilities, including Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) and PERS Smoothing, which is an increase in the premium; staff would be required to return to Council for approval on such a proposal. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would support setting aside $3 million for OPEB and PERS obligations. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether allocating funds for the Emergency Operation Center (EOC) is premature. The Public Works Director responded with the breakdown of the funds for the EOC training and supplies: 1) training for all employees; there are 33 employees for each of three shifts; the City would contract with California Specialized Training Institute run by Office of Emergency Services (OES); 2) laptops, the EOC is currently structured in the basement using old technology; new EOC software would cost $125,000, including maintenance and configuration; the total cost would be $255,705. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft thanked the Public Works Director for his oral report; stated other departments were able to itemize expenditures in the staff report; the public deserves to be informed about where money is being spent; that she would like to have seen the information included in the staff report. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is satisfied with the way the staff report characterizes the $250,000. Councilmember Tam commended staff for their economic acumen for having a surplus. Mayor Gilmore stated it is refreshing to have a budget surplus of $11.5 million; thanked and congratulated staff. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 December 2, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf CityCouncil,2013-04-02,23,"estimates on a three-phase approach to improving both Encinal and Emma Hood pool facilities, which includes cosmetic improvements for Encinal and a two- phase process for the Emma Hood facility improvements; the District and City staff are working on the matter; the joint use agreement for the use and management of the pools is up for renewal in June. ADJOURNMENT (13-149) There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:50 p.m. in memory of former Mayor Terry LeCroix. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 April 2, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf CityCouncil,2007-11-20,23,"Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. . AGENDA ITEMS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 2 November 20, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf CityCouncil,2020-10-20,23,"(20-678) Councilmember Daysog stated AC Transit is trying to hold off on cutting service to Alameda; made an announcement regarding an Oakland-Alameda Noise Forum meeting. (20-679) Councilmember Oddie made an announcement regarding flu shots and a Health Care District liaison meeting; stated seismic construction is underway at the Hospital. (20-680) Councilmember Vella outlined a district-wide strike at Alameda Health Systems Hospital, Alameda Hospital, Highland Hospital and San Leandro Hospital; made an announcement regarding a liaison meeting with East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) and a Lead Abatement meeting. (20-681) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement regarding accessible voting options and ballot drop boxes; stated City staff has been working hard under difficult circumstances during the pandemic; announced the opening of 20 playgrounds in parks; stated there are guidelines for park use; made announcements regarding Halloween and social distancing protocols and a COVID-19 testing and flu vaccine site. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 20, 2020 22",CityCouncil/2020-10-20.pdf CityCouncil,2022-01-04,23,"consideration should not be through the referral process; Council is close to scheduling a Council priority setting workshop; priority setting workshops provide Council the ability to prioritize matters; expressed concern about addressing matters piecemeal; stated staff is working on many projects; inquired whether a date for the workshop has been set. The City Manager responded the date will either be February 1st, 4th, or 5th; everyone has responded to the poll. Councilmember Daysog stated the Council referral is an example of a Councilmember responding to an issue raised by a constituent; the issue was raised in May; planning meetings are not meant to stifle how Councilmembers respond to constituents; Councilmembers must do their best; Councilmembers not in support of the referral can vote accordingly. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Daysog about responding to constituents; stated there are other ways to get information and provide a response. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has communicated with staff multiple times on the matter; there is inconsistency in how the policy is applied; there is a question whether people can park RV in front of houses; some people receive a ticket and others do not; the referral process is about responding to the public; expressed concern about using the priority setting meeting as a way to never use the Council referral process and for squashing Councilmembers' ability to raise issues; stated there is no way for Council to know all matters of concern that might arise in future; expressed support for priority setting on high level goals; however, some matters have nuance and require the Council referral process. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the priority setting workshop has categories of topics and does not require anticipating all future matters. In response to Councilmember Knox White's request to clarify the motion, Councilmember Daysog stated the motion is to approve directing staff to publically share information on RV parking to clarify the policy for Council and the public. Councilmember Knox White inquired whether Council is voting to have information return, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; stated Council needs staff to return for Council policy discussion. Councilmember Knox White stated a policy exists. Councilmember Daysog stated the policy does not exist; the point of the referral is that there are conflicts in how departments respond to RV parking; the matter will be taken to staff to resolve conflicts and return to Council with a policy discussion. Vice Mayor Vella stated Councilmembers have the ability to ask staff questions on policy discrepancies and respond to constituents; all Councilmembers have done constituent case work; the referral seems to extrapolate an anecdotal issue into a wholesale policy change; it seems as though an inquiry was made; Councilmembers owe constituents representation as well as performing the job of an elected official; expressed concern about Councilmembers escalating referrals which may or may not be able to be answered by an email and spending limited time at Council meetings discussing a matter with a simpler solution; stated that she is unsure whether there is an issue with the policy; policies are typically written to allow a level of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 4, 2022 23",CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf CityCouncil,2022-04-19,23,"concern about the Housing Element not being heard at the next Council meeting; inquired when Regular Meeting Alameda City Council April 19, 2022 21",CityCouncil/2022-04-19.pdf CityCouncil,2008-07-15,23,"Commissioner Matarrese stated data needs to be gathered on the correlation of increased sales tax and the City's return. Following Ms. Jacob's comments, Chair Johnson stated WABA and PSBA's marketing, advertising, and promotion costs justify the investment; GABA provides an excellent service to its members public benefit needs to be highlighted. Ms. Jacobs stated that there is a direct correlation between strong, healthy businesses and public benefit; GABA does not put on public events; GABA's advertising remains consistent; a monthly two-page spread is placed in the Alameda Sun which lists all GABA members; GABA affords low-cost, full color advertising to any GABA business. Chair Johnson stated a certain percentage of grant funding should be used for marketing and promotion; a threshold should be set. Commissioner Matarrese stated the City receives three benefits from PSBA and WABA: 1) street maintenance; 2) sales tax revenue; and 3) business license tax revenue; investments should be reviewed every year to see the correlation with the return. Chair Johnson stated GABA's administrative costs are funded that she is not sure whether using grant funding for said purpose is appropriate. Commissioner deHaan stated GABA is a very small operation, but is viable and important; four members would be impacted when Orchard Supply Hardware moves into the Alameda Towne Centre; GABA's proposed grant amount is not that monumental. Chair Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with the amount, but with funding administrative costs requiring that a certain percentage of funding be spent on marketing, advertising, and promotion would satisfy the requirement of ensuring a return to the public; the City does not fund the Chamber of Commerce and Harbor Bay Business Park. Ms. Jacobs stated one of the reasons for the inception of GABA was to afford businesses outside the two districts an opportunity and venue to be an association. Chair Johnson stated GABA provides a very useful, valuable function to its members; the question is how to ensure that the public is getting a return; Alameda has many worthy non-profits that are not funded; inquired whether PSBA or WABA would have any problem with setting a 40%-50% threshold [for advertising and promotion], to Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 4 July 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf CityCouncil,2020-02-18,23,"Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. The City Attorney stated Council may want to consider the exemption of worker's compensation cases. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for the exemptions. The City Attorney stated another exemption to consider are cases where insurance carriers already pierce the excess insurance layer, indicating a settlement; discussed a loss of coverage scenario. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification. Councilmember Vella expressed support for a Council update; stated a call for review may be implemented if necessary; noted a cap on the amounts might prove difficult. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for a Council update when settlements are made. The City Attorney stated an annual report is made public; a report to Council is amenable. Councilmember Daysog stated that information is always good to have. (20-106) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining item, the referral [paragraph no. 20-108]. Councilmember Vella moved approval of hearing the referral. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. *** In response to Councilmember Daysog, the City Attorney stated approval of the item will cause less closed session items. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he appreciates an annual report; a threshold of $25,000 should yield an alert of settlement and allow for action to be taken if necessary. The City Attorney stated within 5 days, updates will be provided for any amount in excess of $25,000. Councilmember Oddie expressed support for the annual report becoming a quarterly report; stated many Councilmembers have expressed concern about a subset of claims. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 18, 2020 21",CityCouncil/2020-02-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-10-18,23,"Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog thanked St. George Spirits for advertising the City of Alameda. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation to consent to a sublease between St. George Spirits, Inc., a California Corporation, and Heads, Hearts, Tails, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, for a portion of the leased space. Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing Mayor Spencer to write an appropriately worded letter encouraging support of legislation that would allow Mr. Winter of St. George Spirits to be allowed to open a restaurant. Mayor Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (16-538) Presentation of Alameda Free Library Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Annual Report. The Library Director gave a Power Point presentation. (16-539) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider remaining items. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the Public Hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance [paragraph no. 16-540]. Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The Library Director continued the presentation. Councilmember Oddie inquired what the increased budget was used for, to which the Library Director responded a lot of material was purchased. Mayor Spencer inquired how the do-it-yourself bike station at the main library was paid for to which the Library Director responded the station was paid for with a grant received by the library cooperative. Mayor Spencer stated that she has heard very good feedback on the station; inquired whether a station will be available at the other Alameda libraries. The Library Director responded there is not currently a plan to add the station to the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 18, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf OpenGovernmentCommission,2021-07-19,23,"Adjournment Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 11:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Meeting of the Open Government Commission 23 July 19, 2021",OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-07-19.pdf CityCouncil,2020-04-21,23,"a checklist would be involved; the process should be as immune to political pressure as possible; noted one of the criteria for abatement is to maintain employees; expressed support for staff providing recommendations; expressed concern about business resiliency and financial impacts; stated there should be a cap; he supports the idea of repurposing profit participation; three non-profits are listed; questioned what can be done for the businesses which have no revenue. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the subcommittee had quite a bit of input; expressed concern about being all things to all people; stated Council is providing input for staff to implement; the item should not be politicized; expressed support for criteria similar to the grant program application related to business viability; stated Council should not be the entity to prop up businesses that were not a growing concern; non-profits should also be accounted for; she is optimistic about the future; the City is helping to slow the spread of COVID-19; scientific advancements will impact the reopening of businesses; outlined potential new norms for restaurants and businesses; urged everyone to do as much as possible; questioned whether Vice Mayor Knox White proposed implementing a 90-day trial with a discussion to return. Vice Mayor Knox White expressed concern about stepping up to provide community benefits as a factor in credit; stated some businesses are able to provide support and some are fighting for survival; the City can celebrate the intent behind the actions, but it can be problematic; his recommendation is to defer the rent for 90-days to give staff time to come back with a plan. Councilmember Vella stated that she supports much of the direction from the subcommittee; expressed support for looking at overall resiliency of a business; businesses need to find new ways to operate in a world where social distancing requirements are in place; expressed concern about the City funding things long-term to keep businesses afloat; questioned whether the businesses could also apply for the small business grant; expressed concern about businesses applying for grant funding and rent abatement; stated there should be an overall cap; one to two exceptions would need detailed explanations; expressed support for looking into how much employees are making, and at the overall health of the business; for giving approval for the deferral as-needed; staff can take time to refine the direction provided. Councilmember Oddie questioned whether the 90-days will begin immediately or include the 60-days of already deferred time. Vice Mayor Knox White responded his assumption is that most tenants paid in March; stated the start date would be April 1, 2020. Councilmember Oddie stated the extension would be through June; expressed support for the timing; stated civic contribution could also include paying staff or allowing staff to work at the Food Bank. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for recognizing civic good deeds, but it should Special Meeting Alameda City Council April 21, 2020 13",CityCouncil/2020-04-21.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-16,23,"being requested. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a redacted copy with the name blocked out could be submitted. The Community Development Director responded the information could be collected and then the names be redacted when information is being made public. Mayor Spencer stated she is fine with Subsection 6-58.140A2. The Community Development Director stated the issue of redacting the name will be in the program guidelines; Subsection 6-58140A2 could be expanded to read: ""the housing provider must provide to the program administrator a copy of the notice to vacate served on the tenant and the amount of the rent in effect at the time the notice to vacate was served and the amount of the rent that the new tenant will be charged:' 6- 58.140A3 would be deleted in its entirety. Mayor Spencer agreed. Councilmember Daysog stated the names and relevant information need to be collected; it is up to staff to protect the information. Councilmember Oddie inquired if the landlord could redact the information before it is submitted. The Community Development Director responded the underlying point is that the prospective tenant would not have a rent 5% higher than the in-place tenant; stated data must have the landlord state what the rent would be for the new tenant; the law says it cannot be more than 5% higher; the paperwork should be completed at the time of notice of termination. Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether only the unit and rent amount are needed, names and phone numbers are not needed, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired if all are in agreement; all Councilmembers agreed. Mayor Spencer stated the requirement for owner move in is a natural person who has at least a 50% interest as opposed to 10% or 33%; inquired where 50% came from. The Assistant City Attorney responded the idea is that a human would be asking for the owner move in or owner's family move in; theoretically, a human being could own 25% interest and a corporation could own 75% interest. Mayor Spencer stated she agrees with staff's proposal; inquired if everyone agrees with staff's proposal. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-09-04,23,"are homeless is an extravagance; there are ways of creating affordable-by-design housing; consumers can make their decision where to apply; putting more affordable- by-design options in developments is paramount; people who are housing insecure are not worried about whether or not they have a balcony. Councilmember Oddie stated his issue is with new developments; everyone should have personal open space as an amenity, which is an equity issue; people who live in multi-family housing should not be discriminated against. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation and introduction of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Spencer requested a friendly amendment to add language and conditions requiring projects to have a maintenance clause and bond for common areas. Councilmember Matarrese accepted the friendly amendment to add in a long-term maintenance agreement. The Planning Services Manager clarified, the Council is requesting to add conditions regarding long-term maintenance of the open space areas as part of the Design Review approval for the open space plans. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1. (18-486) Recommendation to Receive a Report on the Alameda Museum Archival Activities on Behalf of the City; and Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a Five-Year Agreement with the Alameda Museum in an Amount Not to Exceed $42,600 Annually for a Five Year Total Expenditure of $213,000, for Archival Services of City of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 September 4, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-09-04.pdf CityCouncil,2021-02-02,23,"those from other cities; stated Alameda is an easy target; more Police enforcement is needed: Michael Murphy, Alameda. Stated racist attitudes, comments, and actions by Police Officers are inexcusable; there is a problem with Police racism; any hint should be investigated; questioned the quality of life described by previous commenters; stated assertions of a decrease in quality of life are based on personal experiences and anecdotes and run counter to data; bringing more housing does not bring more crime; efforts that are discriminatory and damaging should not be duplicated: Josh Geyer, Alameda. Expressed concern about LPRs and having an outside agency evaluate City data; stated that he is not convinced the LPRs will do anything to deter crime; expressed support for adequate steps being taken to prevent abuse of LPRs by Police Officers and other agencies; stated that he would like personal identifying information to be protected by any agency evaluating data: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda. Vice Mayor Vella requested clarification relative to the armed individual at the MLK Day peaceful protest. The Interim Police Chief stated APD is still looking for help from the public in identifying the suspect; the investigation is ongoing; urged anyone with information to call APD; saying APD has not taken the incident seriously is incorrect; available resources were sent to the scene; the handling of the matter has been discussed internally at APD to learn from; a call for de-escalation and restraint is needed at large group events; APD wants to bring the individual to justice. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether APD would do anything differently should another similar event occur. The Interim Police Chief responded appropriate response is part of the internal conversation; stated if Officers rush in, a shooting is possible; the argument can be made that Officers handled the event appropriately due to there being no active shooting; split second decisions are made by Officers in situations. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the communication around an event is as important as what transpires; noted a Press Release was not issued until the evening after the event; expressed support for communication in real-time. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would appreciate updates; expressed support for communication with the community to the extent possible; stated there can be the perception of work not being done unless work is shown as it is being done; an absence of information causes confusion and distrust; there is concern about conflicting information and the Capitol insurrection; she would like clarification from City staff. The City Manager stated that he has asked staff to look into any social media posts; no [Capitol insurrection] support has been found within current APD Officers; promotion of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 February 2, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2009-02-07,23,"Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the $2.6 million deficit would be caught up in three years under the proposed plan, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated a decision cannot be made until Council hears the OPEB options; inquired whether staff has a better handle on the numbers to ensure the departments pay their share going forward. The Interim Finance Director responded the formula is fine going forward. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the need for $600,000 for IT. The Interim Finance Director responded major work needs to be done between now and June 30 because the system is becoming too risky to operate; outlined the needs; stated auditors have commented that upgrades are needed; the cost to massively overhaul the system would be over $2 million. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether any of the fund has been obligated, to which the Interim Finance Director responded in the negative. In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry about when the City learned of the problems, the Interim Finance Director stated the analysis came recently; the new GASB rules require an IT audit. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired why he did not see the analysis, to which the Interim Finance Director responded the analysis was in a separate memo. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City would be changing from the Groupwise system. The Interim Finance Director responded that she does not know; more detail would be provided. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the information should have been presented as part of the audit at the last meeting; inquired whether the Fiscal Sustainability Committee (FSC) has been informed. The Interim Finance Director responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson requested that the Groupwise issue be addressed. Councilmember Matarrese stated $600,000 from equipment replacement needs to be reprioritized for IT to deal with a critical problem; rolling over debt goes to the bottom line of the General Fund; that Special Meeting Alameda City Council 23 February 7, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf CityCouncil,2006-11-21,23,"Mayor/Chair Johnson stated there might be an ENA or some other agreement or no agreement at all . On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-571CC/06-071CIC) Joint Public Hearing to consider the Proposed Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents : None. Opponents : None. Neutral : Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; and Bill Smith, Alameda. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested staff to respond to Ms. Kerr's comments regarding the use designations. The Development Services Director stated land use changes in the current redevelopment plan would make it consistent with the General Plan; the modifications to the CIC's land use map are being made in order to have it conform with the City's General Plan. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the General Plan has the designation of Community-Commercial (C-C), which is the designation he is familiar with for all of the stations; inquired whether there is an error and requested someone to check. The Development Services Director responded that she does not have a way to check tonight ; the documents were reviewed by the Planning and Building Department staff because the General Plan needed to be overlaid onto the land use mapi the language in the plan amendment being considered would make the General Plan the dominant land use document ; the General Plan, as amended from time to time, would be the guiding land use plan. ouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested the land use map be modified to match the General Plan if the General Plan has the C-C designation; stated the City needs to get on a path to amend the General Plan if C-C is not the General Plan designation; the stations have always been referred to as C-C; said change would be an administrative change the General Plan needs to change if it has the medium density residential designation. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 11 Community Improvement Commission November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf PlanningBoard,2008-06-23,23,"These minutes will be considered at a later meeting. c. Minutes for the meeting of May 27, 2008. These minutes will be considered at a later meeting. 6. PRESENTATIONS: a. Staff Communications - Future Agendas Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items. b. Zoning Administrator Report There was no report. 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: None. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board This meeting was audio and video taped. Page 23 of 23",PlanningBoard/2008-06-23.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-07,23,"Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the two items on the Planning Board agenda were Consent Calendar items; noted the Penumbra matter did not received any comment and was set to close the following day; the matter related to noise had multiple hearings; the Wellness Center design review was the first and only hearing related to design; she listened to the Planning Board meeting in real-time; a caller indicated difficulty with the phone number listing error; the phone number error was raised during the meeting; the Planning Board Chair noted all comments must be related to design only; the matter is important to the community; the City has allowed phone participation and has created agendas with the correct meeting ID for phone participants; expressed support for open government and democracy; stated it is critical for agendas to include the correct meeting ID to hear from public phone participants; it is wrong not to have the correct meeting ID included on the agenda; phone participants experienced problems trying to call-in. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the importance of open government and democracy does not apply across the board. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded there is some discretion for Council to allow the movement and progress of items; stated a delay would have resulted in the hold up of a sale or transfer of property, which had received zero feedback from the community in advance or during the meeting. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how one would know whether or not a member of the public had tried to comment on the matters pulled from the Call for Review due to dialing the incorrect number. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded there has been zero communication received to-date of someone attempting to call-in on either of the items pulled from the Call for Review. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that her understanding from the correspondence attached to the matter is that the two items had been pulled based on requests submitted from proponents. Councilmember Knox White stated that he does not buy the reasoning; there cannot be the suggestion of a problem with one matter but not others; the matter is a clear, targeted Call for Review; the matter is unfortunate and shameful; Council has heard a lot of concerns about abuse of rules in open government complaints; noted people who had issues accessing the Planning Board meeting have not called; the only complaint received was from a caller who had an issue with the first meeting ID; the caller called in a second time, broke protocol for engagement in public meetings and continued to comment after speaking time h; the precedent being set is problematic; expressed support for providing direction to staff to have discussions about when Calls for Review are appropriate; the decision of the Planning Board is not part of the Call for Review; the issue should have been filed as an open government complaint, not a Call for Review; comments at this meeting are from the same participants at the Planning Board Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 7, 2021 15",CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-11-02,23,"19 ridership numbers yet; the numbers are starting to bounce back slowly; she does not park at BART due to the ease of taking AC Transit directly to the Fruitvale Station; stated people are good about wearing masks on BART and AC Transit; discussed parking and construction in the area of Coffee Cultures and the assisted living facility across the street. Vice Mayor Vella stated many cases have ample parking lots and parking alternatives; there are many ways to get to and from locations in the Park Street corridor; expressed support for the matter. Councilmember Daysog stated the current ordinance has a system in place which forces developers to come to the City and ask for lower parking standards; the current proposed ordinance would make it easier for developers to reduce parking requirements; the current system is not burdensome on developers; there is no reason to change it; the current system allows for a lessening of parking requirements in an effort to make housing more affordable; many developers of large projects have been accommodated; he does not see a compelling reason to change the current ordinance; the City should not make matters easier for developers. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. The City Planner stated the work performed by staff is fully supported by the State Senate Bill 2 Planning Grant; the City will seek reimbursement. (21-702) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police to Update Section 310 of the Existing Alameda Police Department Policy Manual to Conform to Existing Best Practices and Statutory Requirements Mandating Notification to the California Department of Justice in Certain Officer Involved Shootings. The Police Captain gave a brief presentation. Stated that he is not a fan of Lexipol; the City should be defining its own police manual; the drafts show fields at the bottom of the proposal which were not fully replaced: Zac Bowling, Alameda. Stated the policy indicate death whether or not the method was from a shooting: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda. Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the policy indicating shootings and deaths; stated that she understands there is an importance in keeping the language as-is. The Police Captain stated the policy is a Department of Justice change and is directly related to officer-involved shootings; the policy is specific to shootings; the policy is not related to any other type of death which may occur. Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification that the policy language will reflect any needed updates. The Police Captain stated the language software includes a mask which allows the City to edit the policy within the program; the fields will automatically repopulate to the proper language. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 2, 2021 20",CityCouncil/2021-11-02.pdf CityCouncil,2018-05-15,23,"Mayor Spencer called a recess at 6:21 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 6:31 p.m. and called a recess at 6:40 p.m. and reconvened at 6:53 p.m. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced a settlement agreement was approved by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 3. Noes: Vice Mayor Vella and Mayor Spencer - 2; Mayor Spencer read a joint statement. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 15, 2018 3",CityCouncil/2018-05-15.pdf CityCouncil,2017-12-19,23,"The Assistant City Attorney clarified the revised resolution is up for consideration. There was no motion on the DA Ordinance and subsequent items. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (17-767) Update on Tracking of Council Direction through the Referral Process. (17-768) The City Manager stated the Council will receive the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) report between now and the end of the year; the report will also be available on the City website. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (17-769) Consider Directing Staff to Draft an Ordinance Requiring the Licensure of Tobacco Retailers, Including a Ban on the Sale of Menthol Cigarettes and Other Flavored Tobacco and Enacting an Annual Fee. Not heard. (Councilmembers Matarrese and Oddie) (17-770) Consider Directing Staff to: 1) Determine Whether Council Can Enact City of an Ordinance to Pass Through a Portion of the Housing Program (Rent) Fee to Tenants; 2) Clarify the City's Collection Efforts for Landlords who do not Pay the Fee by December 31, 2017; and 3) Clarify that the Fee May be Passed Through as Part of a Rent Increase. Not heard. (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella) (17-771) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Information on the Citywide Dockless Bike Sharing Program and Return to Council with Additional Safety Requirements. Not heard. (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella) COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (17-772) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended the memorial service for San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee. (17-773 Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Commission on Disability (CD) and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners (HABOC). Mayor Spencer nominated Jennifer Roloff to the CD and Brad Weinman to the HABOC. ADJOURNMENT Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 December 19, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-12-19.pdf CityCouncil,2021-12-07,23,"635 (21-817) Jim Strehlow, Alameda, stated that he experienced confusion with the multiple motions, counter-motions, amendments and staff confusion; the meeting schedule is unclear. COUNCIL REFERRALS (21-818) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-819) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-820) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-821) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember Daysog) Not heard. (21-822) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023- 2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard. (21-823) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Daysog) Not heard. (21-824) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Previous City Council's Priorities at a Regular City Council Meeting. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-825) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-826) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (21-827) Councilmember Knox White discussed AC Transit's review and changes to the ferry bus schedule and route. (21-828) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed a menorah and tree lighting at South Shore Shopping Center; announced an event at Starbucks put on by the Chamber of Commerce which hosted the new Fire and Police Chief; stated that she has recently been a victim of assault in town. (21-829) Councilmember Daysog discussed roll call voting. (21-830) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced a memorial bike ride which stopped at places involving pedestrian or cyclist traffic deaths; discussed one menorah lighting at South Shore Shopping Center and another at Rittler Park; stated that she read a proclamation for Pearl Regular Meeting Alameda City Council December 7, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-12-07.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2018-05-09,23,"COMMISSION ON DISABILITY MEETING MUTES OF Wednesday May 9, 2018 6:30 p.m. Laurie Kozisek: These are more like making the path of travel accessible and at that point, you'll probably want to go and get a building permit to get those done. So, when you're getting a facade done, and you're changing the doorway and the entrance, you're going to have to spend a certain amount of your money making that accessible, and taking out that step. We might be able to push facade improvements that are there more for accessibility than for giving it a different look. Anyway, it's another pathway, and this one is one with more construction involved. Beth Kenny: And just to clarify, the city has you and some other people who are Certified Access Specialists, but you are not available to be hired by the merchants. You're there, if they get an area, you reinspect it to make sure it's in compliance with? Laurie Kozisek: There are two kinds of CASps. There's the one that work for the cities and counties, who generally do permit review and inspection. And we have some CASps that work for the building department as consultants, that do the review and inspection. I don't actively do that much, but I do, do building plan reviews, mostly the exterior. And then the other kind of CASps, is the one that is privately employed and just does this kind of thing for a living. And there are, I think, about 700 of them in the state of California. This is just a California program. I don't know how much it would cost to get inspection done but I can imagine it's not much, because it's just a very short hour or two to take a look at it. Beth Kenny: Thank you. Unless anybody else has any questions regarding this, I would like to suggest that you guys continue to move forward and reach out to the Chamber of Commerce and the business councils. I can try and send you a list of the ones that I know. Jenn Barrett: That will be great. Yes. Beth Kenny: Yes, and also, if I can start brainstorming on how we can get that grant tied into accessibility improvement, for the businesses. Anto Aghapekian: What grant, what grant? Beth Kenny: It came up, we were talking about. The city has done facade grants. They match the funds. So we're looking to see if there's some way we can have our own grant, or if we should have been attached to the facade grants, in some way that we can get some matching funding for if merchants are able to make these improvements. Oh, yes. I don't think that we need to vote on that. You guys already have your own subcommittees. Do you need anything else from the Commission? Jenn Barrett: No. Just any comments or other ideas. I think we had a great discussion on this, and we're looking forward to going and talking to the Chamber of Commerce. If you do have any adjustments or additional ideas for the list, I would really appreciate any comments on that. That would be great. 5. OLD BUSINESS 5-A Review of Liaison Assignments (All Commissioners) 05/30/18 Page 23 of 32",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2018-05-09.pdf CityCouncil,2007-01-02,23,"other alternatives. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the Tinker Avenue alternative budget is $20 million minus the STIP grant, which is $16 million minus whatever is spent getting to Tinker Avenue feasibility or infeasibility; the payment has a formula in the TDM Program in the event that the alternative is infeasible. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are any updates on Clif Bar. Mr. Marshall, Catellus Executive Vice President, responded all systems are goi stated Clif Bar is anticipated to move in late summer of 2008. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Catellus has submitted a very ambitious work schedule for Planning Board approval. Mayor Johnson stated she likes the project with Clif Bar because of the reuse of the historic waterfront structure. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Clif Bar signed the lease. Mr. Marshall responded in the negative; stated a 100% binding lease would not be signed for a couple of months. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether cost estimates are available for the proposed maintenance district. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded approvals require that a Municipal Services District (MSD) be established for the entire project; the public portions of the wharf would be covered under the MSD the private portions would be maintained by either Catellus or the tenants; staff would be returning to Council with a request to approve the Contract for the overall project in a couple of months. Councilmember deHaan stated that he likes the adaptive reuse of the wharf; the reuse comes with an ongoing cost. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the City would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the entire wharf under the existing DDA; the amount of public ownership has been reduced; a portion of the wharf would be privately owned and maintained. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the private portion of the dock Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf CityCouncil,2005-08-16,23,"are a condition to have the façade treatment on the Oak Street portion of the parking structure provide vertical elements similar to the ones presented by AAPS and a condition to have the treatment of the Central Avenue façade of the Cineplex provide a less modern treatment of the window in between the historic theater and the corner portion of the Cineplex second-story view spot that is curved outwards. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated AAPS presented two pictures. Mayor Johnson requested that the picture be shown. Councilmember Matarrese stated the picture he was referring to was not the garage in Staunton, Virginia. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the picture was of the garage with openings. The Business Development Division Manager stated the picture is of a garage in Walnut Creek and displayed the picture. Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council direction was to have the [Cineplex] architecture be less modern than original renderings. Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese referring to ""less modern"" applies to the overhang that is on the front of the Cineplex. Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated that he was referring to the glass lobby that is curved. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese had any direction in defining less modern. Councilmember Matarrese responded squared off with some sloping treatments; however, he is not an architect. the direction should be general : the architect should come back with something less modern for that window specifically and the architect should understand the idea for the parking structure from the picture. Mayor Johnson requested that the colors be more compatible; further requested staff to review the possibility of having the ticket booth out in front to make the historic theater look like it used to look; stated the booth would not have to be useable. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-06-19,23,"Mayor Spencer stated the same could be said if Council accepts the mid-cycle budget requests and does not make cuts. The Acting City Manager stated the City has a balanced budget this year. The Finance Director continued the presentation. Councilmember Oddie stated he appreciates that other cities are using Alameda's CalPers policy as a model. The Finance Director continued the presentation. Expressed appreciation to Council for approving funding for tenant legal services; stated tenants have no equity, credit, or ability to access legal assistance: Eric Strimling, Alameda Renters Coalition. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Mayor Spencer requested the motions be bifurcated. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution approving and adopting the City of Alameda operating and capital budget mid-cycle update. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Vella - 3. Noes: Councilmember Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 2. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the SACIC budget resolution. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of approving the workforce changes. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Vella - 3. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of resolution approving the ACEA and EXME salary schedules. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission 6 June 19, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-06-19.pdf CityCouncil,2005-07-19,23,"Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired what the typical lead-time is from the time the City Attorney knows outside counsel is needed to the time outside counsel is hired. The City Attorney responded usually the same day the City receives a lawsuit; for example, in a recent lawsuit, the City had 30 days to answer but in the interim the City had a motion for preliminary injunction; within 24 hours of receiving the notice, the Council would receive a paragraph describing the lawsuit received: the immediate notification to the Council would include a description as to what the City Attorney intends to do; a component would be the discretion would be limited through the [counsel] panels, so the Council would know who the City Attorney's office would be selecting; the panels would be reviewed annually; the reason for the immediacy is due to the requirement to respond immediately; there is a balance because when litigation is received, by the next meeting, the Council could indicate that it does not approve of what is being done and how it is being done; the practical reality is that within the first two weeks, significant initial work would be done, which is why the proposal might not be the perfect solution; a lot of knowledge will be given to the Council; there could be additional oversight and opportunities for change after seeing how the proposal works. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether $35,000 would cover two weeks. The City Attorney responded $35,000 was picked as the average cost of litigation; the City Attorney's office actually totaled up costs and $35,000 was the average cost; 50% of the cases are more than $35,000 and 50% are less; the Council will know about the matter within 24 hours, get a report and budget within 30 days, and have the opportunity to schedule the matter for closed session; anything which is significant, such as a bigger case, will automatically go to Council for approval in a closed session; Council will know [about lawsuits] within 24 hours and always have the opportunity to request the matter be placed on the agenda; the City Attorney's discretion in the selection of outside counsel will be from the competitively selected panels of attorneys. Councilmember Matarrese stated the Charter states : ""The Council, or any board with the consent of the Council, may empower the City Attorney, at his request to employ special legal counsel;"" what is being discussed is how the Council empowers the City Attorney to make choices; a practical approach is to empower a certain dollar Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf CityCouncil,2016-09-20,23,"The Assistant Community Development Director responded the City cannot do so; the private sector builds a majority of the affordable housing in the State; if the private sector cannot build any more market rate housing, the vast majority of affordable housing will be cut off. Mayor Spencer inquired about work force housing: in between affordable and market; stated the project does not have work force housing. The Base Reuse Director responded she considers moderate income units work force housing; 80 to 100% of Annual Median Income (AMI) is considered work force housing and will depend on the market rate units structure in terms of size; staff has not reached said level of planning yet. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to discuss the matter at a later date; inquired if the entire project could be counted as one project to obtain the 125 units. The Base Reuse Director responded the 125 remaining units are reserve units to help facilitate infrastructure north of Midway; units were left for the northern part of the site. Mayor Spencer stated more work force housing is needed; the goal should not just be to do market rate and affordable, but also work force housing; she would like pathways to higher paying jobs for the commercial; she does not support retail; assisted living belongs in residential, not commercial; transportation will be an issue for people living in collaborative housing; she plans to support the project; inquired if someone could look into the 125 units being used for work force housing. The Base Reuse Director responded staff would come back with a draft plan to get early feedback from Council and with the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to move forward with the Phase 1 parcel; the next steps would be to tell the developer to include work force housing; right now there is no plan to address the 125 units; the future phase for north of Midway might include the 125 units; the decision will be at Council's discretion. Mayor Spencer inquired if the 125 units can be part of the current project. The Base Reuse Director responded the decision is up to Council. The City Manager inquired if the Base Reuse Director could add in the RFQ a request for the developer to do work force housing without specifying 125 units, along the lines of 30% affordable. The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated tradeoffs can be discussed. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded there are all kinds of tradeoffs; money is a key factor. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 20, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf CityCouncil,2020-09-15,23,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - SEPTEMBER 15, 2020- 7:01 P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 10:50 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom] Absent: None. AGENDA ITEM (20-620) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a $100,000 Contract with Block by Block to Help in the Economic Recovery Efforts from COVID-19 in Alameda's Business Improvement Areas; and Negotiate and Execute an Amendment to the Agreement with Creative Build Inc. to add $103,970 to Provide Extended Hours of Operation for the Day Center and Related Support Services. The Community Development Analyst gave a brief presentation. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated outreach is important; people need to go out to unhoused individuals and establish rapport, trust, and relationships; noted that she has submitted an inquiry to Supervisor Wilma Chan related about setting aside number of rooms for Alameda unsheltered individuals; stated having hotels available is vital; sites must be supervised; there is room for everybody; expressed support for services. Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not support safe parking; the limited money available should be focused on putting people into shelters; outreach programs should also be funded; expressed support for the matter. Councilmember Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council September 15, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-09-15.pdf CityCouncil,2019-05-07,23,"Vice Mayor Knox White stated monitoring would be done under the idea that if something is found, the water would be shut off; questioned if the applicant is amenable to signing a lease with the knowledge of a monitoring list being added after. Mr. Connaughton responded in the affirmative; stated the items being monitored should be standards based. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for using the City's consultants as a resource. In response the Vice Mayor's suggestion to have Sierra Club input, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City needs to have measurable standards; that she does not support including the Sierra Club. Vice Mayor Knox White stated the Sierra Club would only be providing comments to consultants about concerns. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Sierra Club's correspondence can be shared with the consultants. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether there will be an opportunity for Council raise issues and add comments. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the City's contracted biologist and environmental consultants will provide recommendations and there should be no argument between both parties. The City Manager stated if the City and applicant are negotiating standards and criteria, there is an ability to bring it back to Council. *** Councilmember Daysog left the dais at 11:21 p.m. and returned at 11:25 p.m. The Assistant Community Development Director stated Council will receive information as the project moves along; that she is happy to provide feedback to the applicant. Councilmember Oddie stated the risks outweigh the rewards; he will not support the project; the remedy to environmental risks is to trust the applicant and agencies; the risk of environmental impacts occurring are costly in both cleanup and potential litigation; the Enterprise District Plan does not recommend long-term leases; prime property within the Enterprise District will be tied up for 25 years, potentially losing out on developing something better in the space; correspondence provided has de-bunked some of the myths in relation to AMP benefits; job creation and infrastructure should be the priority; the City will not see much money; after seeing the condition of the building at the Enterprise District tour, he believes it should be torn down; the property should be Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 7, 2019 22",CityCouncil/2019-05-07.pdf CityCouncil,2019-07-02,23,"overview of a Health District Board meeting. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (19-408) Councilmember Oddie stated the County has honored the City for the tobacco ordinance. (19-409) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement about a call with Alameda County Mayors related to Assembly Bill AB1487 which provides funding for homeless services, and a Make a Wish East Bay event with Friends of Alameda Animal Shelter (FAAS); stated FAAS will have a float with Girls Inc. at the 4th of July parade; expressed support for a Pride Parade event. (19-410) Vice Mayor Knox White made an announcement regarding the City Charter subcommittee meeting held with the League of Women Voters (LWV) at Mastick and Alameda Library. Councilmember Daysog stated the LWV previously helped adopt the City Charter. (19-411) Councilmember Vella stated that she attended the Lead Abatement meeting; money will be put into an account; the City has five years to spend the funds; direction has been given to submit a letter to the Lead Abatement Board requesting help from the State and Board of Supervisors for staffing, as well as a letter to the courts outlining related issues. (19-412) Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates for the League of California Cities Annual Conference. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is currently the delegate and Councilmember Daysog is the alternate; questioned whether Councilmember Vella would like to be second alternate. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft being the voting delegate, Councilmember Daysog being the first alternate and Councilmember Vella being the second delegate. Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (19-413) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, Recreation and Parks Commission and Transportation Commission. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Carly Grob for appointment to the Housing Authority Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 2, 2019 22",CityCouncil/2019-07-02.pdf CityCouncil,2022-05-17,23,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - MAY 17, 2022- -5:15 P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:16 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Herrera Spencer, Knox White, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. [Note: Councilmember Daysog was absent. The meeting was held via Zoom.] Absent: None. Consent Calendar Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.] (22-329) Recommendation to Approve Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, Len Aslanian, Assistant City Attorney, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development Director, as Real Property Negotiators for 950 West Tower Avenue, Alameda, CA. Accepted. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (22-330) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8); Property: 950 West Tower Avenue (Building 39, Alameda Point, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Community Development Director Lisa Maxwell, Assistant Community Development Director Nanette Mocanu, and Assistant City Attorney Len Aslanian. (22-331) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City Negotiators: Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director, Nico Procos, General Manager Alameda Municipal Power, Jessica Romeo, Human Resources Manager, and Steve Woo, Senior Human Resources Analyst; Employee Organizations: Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA), Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA), Electric Utility Professionals Association (EUPA), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Alameda Police Officers Non-Sworn (PANS), Alameda Municipal Power Unrepresented Employees (AMPU), Alameda Police Management Association (APMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment. (22-332) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957); Title/Description of Positions to be Filled: City Manager. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 17, 2022",CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf CityCouncil,2017-04-18,23,"same: Patricia Gannon, FAWR. Stated there are many development plans in Alameda; establishing a bird safe ordinance is urgent to ensure there is environmentally safe development: Cindy Margulis, Golden Gate Audubon Society. Stated that she is excited that Alameda is joining the list of communities that are concerned about bird safe buildings: Leora Feeney, FAWR. Discussed the importance of landscaping and trees for people who live near well-lit buildings: Pat Lamborn, Alameda. Mayor Spencer stated that she submitted a separate referral based on the Golden Gate Audubon Society's standards for wildlife safety, not just bird safe; she would like a more comprehensive effort for protecting Alameda's wildlife, including artificial lighting and trees. Vic Mayor Vella stated the sample draft ordinance could work and includes the importance of landscaping and future related standards, atriums, greenhouses, and some of the lighting aspects; she hopes the ordinance addresses some of Mayor Spencer's concerns; she would like the effort to be comprehensive as well, not just piece-meal. Councilmember Oddie stated the draft Ordinance from the City of Richmond addresses the concerns; he would like Alameda to be celebrate being recognized for the effort; Alameda has done a lot of work to protect wildlife; Councilmember Matarrese took the lead on protecting the seals; taking the next step is important. Mayor Spencer stated that she wants to make sure Council is agreeable to combining the referrals for a comprehensive effort. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should place the appropriate priority level on the referral; the matter will go to the City Planner for review; she would like to know all the considerations. In response to the City Manager's inquiry, Councilmember Matarrese stated the referral is a medium priority similar to the lighting ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of giving direction to consider a comprehensive bird friendly ordinance with protections for other wildlife. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated while staff is reviewing the applicable criteria, the referral could be dependent on, and combined with, other projects or work efforts. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 April 18, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf CityCouncil,2016-01-05,23,"than 5%. Mayor Spencer suggested the number be discussed. Councilmember Daysog stated the correct number is 6%; provided his justification. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the trigger point to be anything above 5%. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he is not sure a trigger point is needed; he is more interested in addressing the fear of eviction when there is no cause eviction; that he is fine with the current process for rent review with professional mediation and binding arbitration over a certain threshold. Mayor Spencer stated the Vice Mayor's proposal is different. Vice Mayor Matarrese concurred. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese would not use a threshold number and just wants to use the current RRAC process of allowing the tenant to file a complaint with RRAC, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie stated 5%, 6% and 8% have all been mentioned. Mayor Spencer stated 8% was included in the proposed ordinance, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested anything more than 5%, and Councilmember Daysog stated 6%. Councilmember Oddie stated tenants are concerned about getting 8% increases every year; that he believes a lower threshold will result in more increases at the threshold; there would probably be more 5% increases if the threshold is set at 5%, than 8% increases if the threshold is set at 8%; he could go with any of the numbers. Mayor Spencer stated that she would agree to anything above 5%. Councilmember Oddie stated the matter would be reviewed in a year, so he would agree to above 5%. Mayor Spencer stated the majority agrees that the landlord would have to go to the RRAC for any increase above 5%. Councilmember Daysog expressed that he could agree with setting the threshold as anything above 5%. Councilmember Oddie stated data should be collected on all rent increases; the matter would need to be reviewed if every increase comes in at 5%. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 January 5, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-15,23,"not be enforceable. Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he does not think there will ever be a right period. Councilmember Gilmore stated a right period would be an odd-numbered year when no one is running for anything; the ordinance is rampant with conflict of interest. Mayor Johnson stated that she feels the ordinance is for the public. Councilmember Gilmore stated that public wants more public discussion; the only time the matter has been of concern was when a candidate spent a lot of money. Vice Mayor deHaan stated anyone can spend any amount of their own money; that he wishes the issue could be included but it cannot. Councilmember Gilmore stated the Council voted three to two to introduce the ordinance; three Councilmembers would be putting through a rushed campaign financing law which is very important to the City; an ordinance is needed but not on a rushed basis without public input. Mayor Johnson stated there has been opportunity for public comment; lack of public input indicates that the community is not opposed to what Council is proposing. Councilmember Matarrese stated in the time between the first reading and this meeting, he found out that people do not know about the ordinance and more public hearing is needed. Councilmember Tam stated everyone supports campaign finance limits; the ordinance needs to be meaningful and reflective of the community; if the idea is to limit the amount of expenditures and to make it more transparent on who receives money from whom, she does not think an individual contribution limit is the way to go because it would drive money underground and would force a PAC to fund campaigns to the nth degree that no one would have any control over; the voluntary expenditure limit is the way to go and should substitute for contribution limits; giving an opportunity for more review and comment would not take that much more time; inquired whether there should be a motion to extend the deadline for public comment, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of extending the deadline for public comment and sending the ordinance to the Sunshine Task Force with participation from the League of Women Voters; that she would direct the Sunshine Task Force to the League of California Cities website. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan inquired when the ordinance would be brought Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf CityCouncil,2006-06-20,23,"Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated part of the reason for building a new Clubhouse is to change the look of the Golf Course and increase revenues. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Joint City Council and Golf Commission Meeting is scheduled soon. The City Manager/Executive Director stated the Golf Commission is reviewing a business plan and issues beyond rainy days. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Golf Commission should not be looking at the issue as a short-term rain problem; the national trend has been declining golf for years; inquired whether the restricted reserves would be used for the Clubhouse. The City Manager/Executive Director responded the restricted reserves identify the actual capital assets. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the business plan should be adjusted to reflect the current revenue. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the ROI was decreased currently but was increased in the past to address the City's shortfall. The Finance Director stated the Council adopted an ordinance that established the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) and ROI in Fiscal Year 2004-2005; the ROI applies to the Alameda Power and Telecom and Golf funds; the PILOT applies to the sewer fund, Alameda Power and Telecom and Golf fund; the PILOT and ROI produced additional revenue which was helpful in 2005 and 2006; the recommendation was to reduce the ROI by 50% on the Golf fund and Alameda Power and Telecom because of the increasing General Fund revenue. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether lowering the ROI further is anticipated, to which the Finance Director responded possibly. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the ROI should not be considered a permanent source of revenue. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 9 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2021-03-11,23,"Picture 3 of 4: Saturday, March 6, 2021: people waiting to play Picture 4 of 4: rackets in line for next available court",RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf CityCouncil,2021-09-21,23,"Vice Mayor Vella stated the process should have a clause allowing for collaborative, regional peer review built into the agreement; expressed support for a bi-annual check in; stated San Francisco has been providing services for a short period of time; the matter is regional; the peer review will be helpful; expressed concern about opening the Quality Assurance Board review up to a full public meeting; stated the program is a pilot in an emerging area and needs a lot of expertise; she is not in favor of the second year option being extended by mutual agreement; expressed support for the pilot coming back to Council after one year for review, a presentation on data and peer review results; stated the program is a good starting point; a lot of work has been done to get here; the City could end up looking for a different build-out; Council can make decisions at the one year mark; expressed support for the work put into the program; stated the goal is to have the proposed alternative happen; she is concerned about the Exhibit A to the agreement not being included; stated Council should provide direction on specifics and have the matter return in a clean fashion. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to hear from the City Attorney regarding the missing Exhibit A; she understands the exhibit to be a tentative document; she believes Council can proceed with the language included in the report. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about an Open Government Commission (OGC) complaint being filed against the City Council. The City Attorney stated if Council wishes to proceed with the matter, Council may provide clear direction to staff; the staff report acknowledges that the contract is not complete; Council will need to provide as clear direction as possible so that the authority given to the City Manager is understood; alternatively, Council may consider providing direction to have staff return with a clean Exhibit A; both options are legally viable. Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined the first page of the proposed agreement; stated her preference is to move forward and allow the City Manager to negotiate and execute the agreement with AFS; the language is recommending Council approve the City Manager being allowed to negotiate and execute the agreement with AFS; inquired how the City Attorney believes Council should proceed. The City Attorney responded that his previous response is consistent with the language presented; stated Council has multiple paths forward, including giving the City Manager authority to negotiate and execute the agreement or staff can return to Council with something more precise; both approaches are within Council's authority. Councilmember Herrera Spence moved approval of the staff recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Alameda Family Services for an amount not to exceed $500,000 for one-year. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for starting the term at one year and having Council make a decision to provide direction at the current meeting; stated the direction complies with the staff recommendation; she hopes Council will support Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 21, 2021 19",CityCouncil/2021-09-21.pdf CityCouncil,2013-07-23,23,"(13-369) Recommendation to Endorse Comments on Alameda Point Conceptual Planning Guide. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Guide is really fun to read; the staff report noted the document represents 17 years of previous planning documents and efforts; the City has been working on the issue for a long time; moving forward is exciting; compressive planning information has gone into the Guide; the Planning Board has suggested specific changes to the Guide; one suggestion was to add language to clarify parks and open space are to be used for employees as well as residents; requested an explanation. In response, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the Guide specifically states parks are for residents; stated a Planning Board member noted parks are also for employees; another solution would be to take out language about parks being for residents since parks are for everyone. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Recreation and Parks Director's presentation tonight revealed parks are used by residents more than nonresidents, but parks are open for everybody; stated the list of stakeholders includes the West Alameda Business Association (WABA), commercial and residential development professionals, Alameda Point commercial tenants, and others; inquired why the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) is a stakeholder. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded both WABA and the Chamber of Commerce were included; stated PSBA was added just to be as inclusive as possible and to have all business associations involved in the process. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted Park Street is a long way away; stated broad-based community outreach will use the website, social media and editorial board briefings in both the print and online media; listed media groups; questioned whether other journals, such as the San Francisco Chronicle, East Bay Business Times, and San Francisco Business Times, should be included; stated the net should be cast wider than the City limits to attract potential businesses and investors; that she is pleased there is room for new architecture in new areas while the historic nature of the historical zone would be respected; the Guide talks about business retention and attraction and notes initially, compromises need to be made to retain and attract business; inquired what is meant by compromises needing to be made initially. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded one idea was regarding parking pricing; stated transit use is encouraged in areas which have high parking demand; customers might not want to go to a retail location which charges for parking; charging for parking initially would only discourage people from going to the location; including parking pricing in the City's tool kit could be used to address concerns regarding successfully attracting retail customers long term. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 July 23, 2013",CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf CityCouncil,2018-04-17,23,"Mr. Anderson responded Shimmick could live with 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. with non-scheduled trucking on a five-day schedule. In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding noise complaints during the earlier time, the Acting Assistant City Manager stated there have been no complaints as there is a precedence. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Mr. Anderson stated the standard shift is 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. to provide project support during day time hours. Councilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance, with direction for staff to negotiate regarding the truck schedule. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the change is minor enough to constitute tonight as the first reading. The City Attorney responded the change could be added to the rules and regulations and is a minor change; Council could move forward with the direction and have the first reading tonight. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like more information for the community when the item comes back; she would like to see routes and truck size; she does not want any surprises for the community. Vice Mayor Vella inquired when was the use permit granted and was there a process. The Community Development Director responded the use permit would have been heard by Zoning Administrator with a 20-day notice period; the public process includes an ad in the paper and noticing within 300 foot radius of the site. Mayor Spencer stated the use permit process was internal; she would like to share more information and pictures with the community. The Community Development Director stated the standard process for the type of use was followed; nothing about the process was different. Mayor Spencer stated there was a lot of push-back with a previous containers item and she would like to publicly share more information with the community. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of calling the question. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion to call the question, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 19 April 17, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-04-17.pdf CityCouncil,2008-10-07,23,"Councilmember Matarrese stated staff recommends that Council accept and endorse the Park Street north of Lincoln Strategic Plan and direct staff to amend the City's zoning regulations. inquired whether direction is to include expanding the Work/Live Ordinance; stated that he advocates using work/live beyond the current scope in order to review rehabilitation and reuse of historic buildings outside zones currently designated and as a way to meet Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA) goals. The Development Services Director stated the Strategic Plan provides a framework; the next step would be to start exploring form-based zoning. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not advocate changing the interior Work/Live Ordinance requirements but expanding locations within the Ordinance. Councilmember deHaan stated six properties fall under the Work/Live Ordinance; only one property has moved forward; the work/live idea seems to have hit a wall; the proposed plan sets benchmark visions. Vice Mayor Tam stated the City has the opportunity to take control of its destiny by going through concerted efforts with the Planning Department rather than allowing haphazard market forces to decide. Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion with direction to put effort into the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, including the integrated area and review expansion of the Work/Live Ordinance. Under discussion, Mayor Johnson stated direction should include review of obstacles associated with work/live projects because only one project has moved forward; the Work/Live Ordinance is a critical piece for reuse of historic assets in the northern waterfront area. Vice Mayor Tam and Councilmember Matarrese concurred to amend the motion to include Councilmember Matarrese's and Mayor Johnson's recommendations Mayor Johnson stated the area should not be named the Gateway District. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 4 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf CityCouncil,2021-06-15,23,"opportunity to fund one-time setup costs to jump start innovative approaches to community safety and support; changes may take time and adjustments can be made; the public is happy to work with staff to further define matters: Jacqueline Zipkin, Alameda. Stated the pilot programs do not sway away from Police response, which has been greatly stressed by the community; Police do not need to be responding to mental health crises; pilot programs need to be available 24 hours, 7 days a week; mental health crises do not stop during nighttime periods or weekends; if the Fire First option had been in place, Mario Gonzalez may still be alive; urged Council not make a decision on the matter and have staff return with a better pilot program option, which does not include APD response; expressed support for the Fire First option: Vinny Camarillo, Alameda. Stated Police should not be responding to mental health calls; the community has made recommendations clear; mental health professionals should be responding to mental health emergencies for the health and safety of all; urged Council be bold: Seth Marbin, Alameda. Discussed not calling the Police and calling the Fire Department instead; stated multiple family members have had mental health crises; she has feared Officers responding to calls; Officers responding to calls with handcuffs needs to stop; mental health providers need to show up first and be available 24 hours, 7 days a week; urged Council to provide a response which is appropriate; stated the City should not trade safety for financial harm; urged Council look closely at response fees: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda. Discussed Council meeting Rules of Order: Zac Bowling, Alameda. Stated Police should not be responding to mental health calls; Council would respond differently and quickly had incidents occurred with white people and Police; a non-Police response is needed; urged Council to reject the Felton Institute program option; stated Council is setting a pattern of decisions and recommendations being ignored; harm needs to be prevented now; urged Council to listen to requests being made; stated funds are available through ARPA; change is needed now: Alexia Arocha, Alameda. Discussed her experience needing help with a mental health emergency; stated Police have been professional; however, Police needed to be educated; noted the cost for the ambulance ride was roughly $2,500; stated Council needs to inform people about emergency costs: Janet Gibson, Alameda. Urged Council to vote for one of the first two options; stated perfect is the enemy of the good; the City cannot delay; improvements and changes can be made to the pilot program as it progresses; noted support for community crisis care responders: Laura Cutrona, Alameda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2021 14",CityCouncil/2021-06-15.pdf CityCouncil,2016-02-02,23,"Mountain View. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the provision has been effective in addressing housing issues. The Community Development Director stated a one year lease exempts all other requirements regarding relocation in Glendale. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff is addressing relocation benefits yet. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the recommendation to offer one year leases for tenants' protection and to bring stability; clarified the only question is whether the Council wants to include in place tenants. Mayor Spencer inquired if a one year lease would then become month to month. The Community Development Director responded residential leases typically roll to month to month. Mayor Spencer inquired if there is an actual requirement. The Community Development Director responded that if there is an existing lease, the new lease would have to be materially the same. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether a tenant who chooses the month to month instead of a year lease would still only get one increase a year, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the staff recommendation includes the tenant receiving an option of a one-year lease of one year when a lease expires and whether the offer is only one time. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether tenants would be subject to a rent increase after the year. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the offer would be the first time there is notice of a rent increase after the ordinance goes into effect. Mayor Spencer inquired whether it would only apply to rent increases in the first year after the ordinance goes into effect. The Community Development Director responded the ordinance is written to require, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf CityCouncil,2020-07-21,23,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - JULY 21, 2020- 7:01 P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 8:06 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.] Absent: None. AGENDA ITEM (20-538) Resolution No. 15682, ""Calling for the Holding of a Consolidated Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, for the Submission of a Proposed Charter and General Plan Amendment to Repeal the Prohibition Against Building Multi-Family Housing in Alameda and the Citywide Density Limitation of One Housing Unit per 2,000 Square Feet of Land, and Authorizing City Councilmembers to File Written Arguments For or Against the Measure. Adopted. The City Attorney and City Clerk gave a brief presentation. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [adoption of the resolution]. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would prefer to vote no on the matter; noted that he would like Measure A to be maintained. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the signers are set by the resolution. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is voting to place the item on the ballot, not to vote in support or against an item. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for being able to sign the argument against; stated that he would like the matter not to appear on the ballot at all; he will vote no. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft recessed the special meeting at 8:14 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:14 p.m. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 1 July 21, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf CityCouncil,2022-01-18,23,"(22-058) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to Develop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023- 2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard. (22-059) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Daysog) Not heard. (22-060) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Previous City Council's Priorities at a Regular City Council Meeting. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (22-061) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (22-062) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department Community Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (22-063) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed a meeting regarding a proposal to widen the estuary to allow for a larger turning basin. (22-064) Councilmember Daysog announced an upcoming joint liaison meeting of the City Council and Alameda Unified School District with Councilmember Knox White. (22-065) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed a recent hostage situation in Dallas, Texas; expressed support for the Police Chief reaching out to support to local synagogues. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 18, 2022 23",CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf CityCouncil,2010-06-01,23,"development at Alameda Point in order to create a more robust ferry system; otherwise, there would not be any ridership; inquired what is the threshold to obtain new ridership, to which the Public Works Director responded a ten minute walk. In response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the Public Works Director responded SunCal has not provided ridership estimates; the developer normally provides the information. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the last study showed that 24% of Alamedans go to San Francisco; thoughts are that every ferry would move all masses to San Francisco, which is not the case. The Public Works Director stated SunCal is proposing that more people would commute to San Francisco because SunCal's product would be more appealing to people who work in San Francisco; the ferry is only one part of the transportation proposal; the bus rapid transit would be in the later phase. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the PDC included the bus rapid transit; denser areas would provide an opportunity for more ridership; requested that all information be brought back; stated that he has not seen anything new. The Public Works Director stated the City developed a preliminary traffic analysis for Measure B; the PDC did not have any traffic analysis but had ideas to sustain a transit oriented development; level of service analyses were not done; the first time a level of service analysis was done was in the Election Report and was very preliminary. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated a lot of new studies have not been conducted in the last three years; the issue would be addressed with SunCal at Thursday's meeting; said discussion could be brought back at the next meeting. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated there still seems to be an issue regarding where the ferry terminal would be placed; transit solutions need to function as a whole; inquired how work can start on the rest of the transportation system when the ferry terminal location is unknown. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the ferry would be part of the transit hub. The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the ferry terminal would meet the bus rapid transit; the matter would be discussed with WETA. In response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated SunCal has told the City where it wants the ferry terminal. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated planning is needed. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 12 Community Improvement Commission June 1, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf CityCouncil,2018-03-06,23,"conduct a lottery or random drawing. Councilmember Oddie stated staff can suggest options to Council at the next meeting when the item comes back. The Community Development Director stated the RFP process is to award the right to move forward to apply for an application; issues around Fire safety and security are premature and would be better in the application side where people have to discuss the physical layout of the building and other safety features. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with the suggestion to have a Planning Board member on the panel; she feels law enforcement should still be on the panel; she is opposed to each Councilmember appointing someone on the panel; the process should not be politicized. Councilmember Matarrese stated the organization of the RFP is fine; to understand the City's risks, he would like a law enforcement presence on the panel to evaluate the handling of cash and of the substance which is federally illegal; he would also like having a City Attorney on the panel to evaluate risks; he would agree to consultants on the panel to ensure other City work is still getting done, like the homeless and housing issues. The City Attorney noted there is an appeal to the City Attorney on the panel issue. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he withdraws his request for having a City Attorney on the panel. Mayor Spencer stated it is important to have rubrics and a five member panel; she does not believe it is appropriate to have law enforcement on the panel; suggested employees from other departments assist with the panel; stated the interview should be pass/fail instead of 50 points because it is extremely subjective; she would like to consider other criteria for the top percentage or a lottery. Councilmember Oddie suggested the panel include a contracted City Attorney, someone from Planning and real estate; stated an individual who can evaluate the applications more broadly is needed. The Community Development Director clarified the request from Council is: increasing the panel to five members; no law enforcement on the panel because when the process advances to the permit, the permit will be routed to the Fire and Police Departments to add conditions of approval; and a mix of consultants and staff from a range of departments. Mayor Spencer stated that she did not hear anyone else say consultants; stated consultants would need to be paid. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 March 6, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-03-06.pdf CityCouncil,2019-02-05,23,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 5, 2019- -7:01 P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 10:51 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA ITEM (19-084) Resolution No. 15489, ""Exploring Options to Mitigate Impacts of the Federal Government Shutdown on Alameda Residents."" Adopted. Councilmember Daysog stated the issue is vital; noted the number of federal employees. Councilmember Oddie stated the City needs to be proactive; the shutdown ended; the City should have a plan to prevent evictions and provide services in the event of another shutdown. Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 10:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk and Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council February 5, 2019 1",CityCouncil/2019-02-05.pdf CityCouncil,2019-11-19,23,"(19-654) Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he met with Love School Parent Teacher Association (PTA) about traffic safety; thanked the Public Information Officer for preparing the recognition of first responders; suggested the City Clerk share the staff presentation at Recreation and Park Commission meeting with Ms. Adams. ADJOURNMENT (19-655) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:48 p.m. in memory of Benjamin Reyes and Sia Sello. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 November 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-11-19.pdf CityCouncil,2009-11-03,23,"The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the CIC residential profit participation revenue is over and above the base price. The Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the $19.3 million pays for project obligations; stated all of the profit participation and land sale proceeds received from the project go back into the project to retire obligations; a $7 million obligation for the developer advance still remains; profit participation expectations were higher two years ago. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether State level problems and redevelopment fund take away will have any affect on the bond. The Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the State's financial condition has hurt the bond market. stated redevelopment bonds have done much better than other types of bonds; today's bond market is much higher than a couple of years ago; nobody will allow the City to bond until how the City will make the State payment is determined; the City has the capacity to issue a bond much larger than recommended by staff; that she recommends not to bond to capacity because of State uncertainties. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether staff would provide a complete bond overview, to which the Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the City has the capacity on paper: estimates were raised as the project was built; using revenue streams to pay bonds back is subject to the State take away; the State's structural problems are not going to be remedied. The Economic Development Director stated that she has had conversations with the Interim City Manager/Executive Director regarding consideration of strategies for just using tax increment generated off the project for the next year or SO. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the annual tax increment from the project. The Economic Development Director responded over $3 million; stated there is $866,000 per year in existing debt service payoff of old bonds that anchor the project. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 3, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf CityCouncil,2005-05-17,23,"with cuts. Mayor Johnson concurred. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there is not a need to go through each department, especially departments not losing actual employees. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is interested in creating a profile for Alameda's budget the International City Management Association (ICMA) has certain ratios on the number of police officers and fire fighters; inquired whether ratios were available for the public works, planning and recreation departments; stated ratios might indicate additional funding is needed for a department; a standard other than ICMA could be used; that he would like to know where the City should be. The Acting City Manager inquired whether louncilmember Daysog was requesting information on ideal staffing levels. Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; noted Alameda County uses said standards to produce its budget. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda County uses ICMA standards, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the negative. Councilmember Matarrese stated standards are useful for touching base, but historic review of staffing and service levels is very valuable because it is reality; the City has certain realities, such as being an island which has advantages and disadvantages that must be taken into account. Councilmember Daysog concurred that historic data is good, too; stated ICMA standards probably correlate to what staff is requesting. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated in addition to presenting information from departments losing a staff person, departments with a large number of vacant positions that interface with the public, such as public safety, should also be discussed at the next Council meeting so the public would be aware of changes in service. The Acting City Manager noted there would be reductions in force in Development Services, which is funded through sources other than the General Fund. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be a reduction in positions at Alameda Power and Telecom, to which the Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf CityCouncil,2008-06-17,23,"assessments are needed; repair costs need to be evaluated versus replacement costs. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated vehicle use needs to be identified; fuel efficiency needs to be reviewed if a vehicle travels a lot of miles. The Fire Chief stated the proposal is to replace Fire Department sedans with hybrid vehicles. Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether vehicles would be replaced with the Toyota Prius. The Fire Chief responded vehicles would be replaced with Ford Escapes. Mayor/Chair Johnson questioned whether the command vehicle needs to be replaced next year. louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated annual fuel costs need to be reviewed for take home vehicles; decisions need to be made regarding reassigning vehicles and reduction of the overall inventory. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that the proposed budget reflects a certain level of trade offs $300,000 would be generated through the proposed fee structure and would offset the $820,000 in mandatory [Fire Department) overtime costs; there still would be $520,000 in mandatory overtime cost expenditures that would be controlled through rotating the closing of a fire truck; inquired what differs other than postponement. The Fire Chief responded hopefully some other revenues enhancements will occur in the fall; stated the additional $300,000 would be counted on to delay the immediate closure [of a fire truck]. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that additional funds could be generated by not replacing vehicles. Vice Mayor/Boar Member/Commissioner Tam stated said savings is not on-going. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated continued discussions are needed regarding long-term issues. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated increased Police Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 13 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf CityCouncil,2010-05-04,23,"Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Daisa is working on a transportation plan. The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded not that she is aware of; stated Kimley-Horn has worked with SunCal to develop the chapters in the Master Plan. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how the plan can be called transit oriented when there has not been a lot of transportation planning yet. Mr. Brown responded a land plan is designed first; Peter Calthorpe, Calthorpe Associates, brings a higher level of design sensibility on how a community functions; blocks are designed with a scale of walk ability and transportation connections; home density surrounding the infrastructure encourages people to use facilities and not get into a car first. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a high unit count project is not a transit-oriented development; having enhanced public transit access does not make a plan transit oriented. Mr. Brown stated the challenge is to ensure the reality of what will be delivered and that the community is comfortable that the vision has mechanisms in place. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated many questions have not been answered yet; the community keeps hearing that answers will come; people are anxious to get answers to questions. Mr. Brown stated the challenge is to convince decision makers that the plan is one that meets expectations and quality standards and solves mitigation problems. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated transit planning should not be just a reaction to mitigation issues identified in the EIR. Mr. Brown stated the process is an iterative process; traffic impacts are determined; volumes need to be understood. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a transit oriented plan should be proactive rather than reactive to an EIR. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that Mr. Brown stated the base plan is a viable plan, but the intent is to build a density bonus plan; inquired whether the base plan is viable as a base plan to push off of to get to the density bonus plan. Mr. Brown responded that the base plan could be built but does not achieve some of SunCall's goals of creating the nexus to have success with a transit oriented Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community 6 Improvement Commission May 4, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf CityCouncil,2006-09-05,23,"City throughout the next building phases. Commissioner Gilmore stated applicants are required to provide information on any status change, which includes a change in the family size; the Social Security Administration letter was not as clear as the testimony tonight she would have no problem dismissing the $4,000 in overtime if a person in authority provided a letter stating that no overtime would be allowed; the Peralta College income is more problematic; documentation would need to be provided from the College. Commissioner deHaan stated past trends indicate that Mr. Rutledge would teach this year; the evaluation period is important to keep in mind; he is not happy with the prior procedure; the application clearly indicates what the income should include. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether qualification was based on the 2006 income. The Development Services Director responded verification was to be provided to the ADC by December twelve-month income was then projected. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether a twelve-month window was projected from the time of the application. The Development Services Director responded in the negative earnings are projected forward twelve months after the application is complete and an earning pattern is reviewed. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether January 2006 to December 2006 income was used for evaluation purposes. The Development Services Director responded income was to cover March 2006 to March 2007. Commissioner Matarrese stated income projection should be tighter since it is now September an accurate income could be projected if the Social Security Administration certified that no overtime would occur and the Peralta Community College District certified that Mr. Rutledge is on sabbatical figures could be reviewed to see if the income falls within the window. Commissioner Daysog stated 300 affordable homes would be built at Alameda Point west of Main Street; the precedent should be to work with a process that is fair. Commissioner Gilmore stated documented changes are important a Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 4 September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf CityCouncil,2015-01-20,23,"ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 1:28 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 January 20, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-01-20.pdf CityCouncil,2008-05-06,23,"of Shinsei Gardens Apartments at 401 Wilver ""Willie"" Stargell Avenue. "" Adopted; and (*08-173CC) - Resolution No. 14200, ""Authorizing Conveyance of Various Easements for the Development of Shinsei Gardens Apartments at Wilver ""Willie"" Stargell Avenue. "" Adopted. ( *08-174CC/*08-24CIC) Recommendation to approve an Addendum to the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report a Letter of Intent regarding property exchange by and among Palmtree Acquisition Corporation, Peralta Community College District and the CIC; and a Letter of Agreement between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation for dedication of the Stargell Avenue Right-of-Way; (*08-174A CC) Resolution No. 14201, ""Approving a Right-of-Way Contract Between the City of Alameda and the Peralta Community College District for the Stargell Extension Project. Adopted; and (*08-08-24A - CIC) Resolution No. 08-155, ""Approving Letter of Intent by and Among Palmtree Acquisition Corporation, Peralta Community College District, and the CIC and Authorizing the CIC to Accept the Deed to Property. "" Adopted. AGENDA ITEMS (08-175CC/08-25 CIC) Recommendation to approve modifications to the City of Alameda Down Payment Assistance Program to include refinance mortgage recovery loans for qualified existing homeowners. The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation. louncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the bad loans that led to the current crisis are being addressed putting the safety net in place is important. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (08-176CC/08-2 CIC) Recommendation to adopt Loan Guidelines for Downpayment Assistance Loan Program and Below Market Rate Ownership Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 2 Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners May 6, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf CityCouncil,2017-04-07,23,"concerned about having someone from outside the community; the RRAC members have an inherent interest in resolving the issue; paying someone might not be as effective; her goal has been for cases to reach a settlement. Sunset Clause Vice Mayor Vella stated Council has not discussed the sunset clause; that she would prefer to remove the sunset clause since Council can amend the ordinance at any time. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not think it matters; a Council will have to address the matter when the sunset clause ends; the voters approved language allowing the Council to amend the ordinance. Councilmember Oddie stated that he supports removing the clause. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not want to remove the clause if it will take additional time. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated leaving the provision in for now is okay; the City just completed the first year; more information is needed. Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with leaving the provision in right now. RRAC Study The Community Development Director stated that she would like to address the RRAC study which has been requested. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would consider setting a limit to the amount that can be spent on the study. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not want to a make a decision without more information. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the matter has to return to Council if the amount is above a certain threshold, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative. The Community Development Director noted the amount is up to $75,000. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council is authorizing staff to spend up to $75,000, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Oddie stated the amount is under the City Manager's purview. Councilmember Matarrese stated the information is worthwhile; that he does not want to make a decision based on the tradition of having the RRAC; having the matter Continued April 4, 2017 Meeting Alameda City Council 23 April 7, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf CityCouncil,2015-12-15,23,"533 Following the December 18, 2015 Closed Session, Vice Mayor Matarrese announced that regarding Appointment/Hiring, direction was given to staff regarding conditions of employment. Adjournment On December 18, 2015, there being no further business, Vice Mayor Matarrese adjourned the meeting at 9:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council December 15 and 18, 2015",CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf RecreationandParkCommission,2019-09-12,23,CT Education Opportunities,RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf CityCouncil,2021-03-30,23,"Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer started the information she has shared is public information; the map is information shared as an attachment to an agenda item; members of the public have had a Zoom conversation; Council makes and votes on plans; any changes to the plan need to go to Council in open session; all information shared is public information and is not illegal; she is disappointed to have a Councilmember make such a statement; expressed support for educating the public on matters shared as public information; stated a plan for Jean Sweeney Park was voted on by City Council; discussions are taking place via Zoom as well as at the Recreation and Parks Commission; the map is shown as revised park boundaries; input is being sought for less park area, which contradicts the plan approved by Council; she opposes the motion. On the call for the question the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. Councilmember Knox White inquired whether any actions have been reported out regarding the matter. The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated all report outs from Council have been that staff has provided information and Council has provided direction. Councilmember Knox White inquired whether there have been reports out about changes to park boundaries or uses, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative. Councilmember Knox White stated it is fair to assume that until such report is made, no decisions have been made. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (21-196) Mayor's Nominations for Appointments to the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Recreation and Park Commission. Not heard. (21-197) Councilmember Herrera Spencer announced a vigil is held tomorrow; the vigil is two parts: a Zoom meeting at 5:15 p.m. and an in-person vigil at Chochenyo Park. (21-198) Vice Mayor Vella made an announcement regarding the Alameda County Healthy Homes meeting; stated that she forwarded the meeting Power Point presentation to the City Manager; discussed a Hospital Liaison Committee meeting. (21-199) Councilmember Knox White stated the City Council and School Board Subcommittee met last week; outlined the issues which were discussed: a joint program is being put together to start education in schools and within the community around indigenous ancestors and the impacts of colonialism; ideas will be brought back to the subcommittee, which will be brought back to the School Board and Council; discussed an update on mental health services. (21-200) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a funding request for mental health services will be reviewed in the budget presentation in May; made an announcement regarding a meeting Continued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 23 March 30, 2021",CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities,2017-04-12,23,"ITEM 2-B COMMISSION ON DISABILITY ISSUES MEETING MINUTES OF Wednesday, April 12, 2017 6:30 p.m. Beth Kenny: The Mastick Event is generally pretty small and can be handled by one person. Jenny Linton: Note that May 31st is a Wednesday. Our next event, the Neptune Jam on Webster Street, another big event, this is Father's Day weekend and we didn't assign ourselves anyone for that event yet. The Mayor's Fourth of July parade, Arnold took this one on. We have some great ideas around getting a Paratransit shuttle into the parade. Beth Kenny: When I was speaking with Stuart from the Independent Living Center, he was talking about they want to do something for the Fourth of July parade, and it would be great if we could do something in conjunction. He seemed open to the idea. Jenny Linton: Special Olympics is also part of the parade every year. Lisa Hall: Now that's always fun. Jenny Linton: Downtown Alameda Art and Wine Fair, we don't have a primary lead on that for July 29th and 30th. The Emanuel Lutheran Church Fair both Arnold and Lisa were interested in leading that. Lisa Hall: Arnold's going to lead that. Jenny Linton: For the commission, Lisa's going to lead it for the Food Bank. That's what we know it to mean, okay. Beth Kenny: So, are you guys suggesting that what we do all of these events? Is that Sorry, go ahead. Arnold Brillinger: I would like to say that we could divide these into small events and large events. The small events, like you said, take one or two people because they're only for three or four hours at a time and if we have the materials which Kerry has, I believe we can get a bag or a pouch or a box of goodies to take along that are for those people. The ones that are the big events, the three of them are the street fairs and the parade, we will need all of the commissioners to put in some time on that, and we ask for everyone's help with that. So I would like to make a motion. Now also if there are some events that you hear about that we should also be a part of and just send one or two people to it and to have a table and give out information we can add those to the list. But I would like to make a motion that we, as a commission, decide to participate in these on a yearly basis and then - that's the motion. Beth Kenny: So are you saying that we decide to vote on it? I'm sorry, I just need a little clarification. Are you suggesting that the vote that we would take would be for all the years or just for this year and then whatever else comes out? Arnold Brillinger: You see this, we're trying to get it so that we don't have to start again. Right? In January with a new list. We can add some more things to it as we have people who are interested in doing other resources and health fairs, whatever that we could put our information out. 05/24/17 Page 23 of 29",CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2017-04-12.pdf CityCouncil,2020-06-16,23,"City is safe and secure; a Police force is needed; however, ongoing training is also needed; City Hall has had a consistent structure; however, it is time to look at a different approach. Councilmember Vella stated City Hall and Council are listening, present and spending time on the matter; noted Councilmembers have been present at marches and demonstrations; stated change is wanted and being executed; expressed support for programs being community led and involved by all; stated the goal is about limiting Police confrontation especially for non-criminal calls for service; noted the incidents in Minneapolis and Atlanta had been calls to service for a non-violent crime resulting in loss of life; stated departments have started to change policies; however, calls still come in; assumptions cannot be made and an understanding of the process of dispatch needs to occur; the process needs to be thoughtful; expressed support for transformative change that lasts; stated changes should not be for one budget cycle; the four areas all need to be discussed; quoted a statement: ""the great thing about Alameda is that we are big enough to have staff to get things done and small enough to do it as a community;' stated the community can come together and solve problems. Councilmember Oddie stated there have been inappropriate calls to Police dispatch; Police Officers as community members want to be part of the discussion and change; Police Officers are a diverse group of people with families. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has heard about the calls received by dispatch; noted inappropriate calls are not in the name of justice; stated people should practice the compassion being requested; Council has an opportunity to show taking an adversity and finding redemption; an incident on May 23 was captured via social media and brought to Council's attention; discussed a Town Hall hosted by Vice Mayor Knox White, a march she attended with Councilmember Oddie and a meeting with youth leaders; stated this is an opportunity to reallocate Police funding; noted programs cut and forwarded to Police oversight; stated there is no equal trade for Officers to Social Workers; expressed support for a model similar to Eugene, Oregon of civilian teams; stated Alameda is part of a larger system and there is a limited number of resources; Council is working on the homelessness issue; noted Officer training does not include ethnic studies or race relations; stated Berkeley has a mobile crisis outreach van; Alameda could partner with the City of San Leandro for mental health services; there are things Council cannot legislate; this is a historic moment; Council can see this moment and be inspired leaders and move forward with purpose. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (20-433) The City Manager announced an expansion of the slow streets program; stated the County has begun to open again. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 June 16, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-06-16.pdf CityCouncil,2020-05-05,23,"The Economic Development Manager responded staff will be checking business licenses and the Business Improvement Assessments (BIA) to ensure applicants paid last year; stated if eligible, participants will be entered into a lottery; applications will be reviewed to ensure the 20% loss of income qualification threshold has been met. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined a portion of the staff report; stated Council is directing staff to look into supporting the assistance of small businesses; however, the direction is not exclusive to small businesses; noted Council is also including renters. Councilmember Oddie noted there are 470 members of the Downtown Alameda Business Association (DABA); inquired the amount for the West Alameda Business Association (WABA). Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification that the inquiry only includes qualifying members. Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to understand whether the ratio is the same. The Economic Development Manager responded the ratio is not the same; stated there are 212 WABA members on the list. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted WABA includes Target, Safeway and some of the Alameda Landing businesses that could not apply for the small business grant. The Community Development Director stated staff has received 10 applications from Alameda Landing. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether additional funding could be provided for the program; inquired the options available for consideration; noted should all applicants be awarded, the cost will be $1.485 million. The Economic Development Manager responded the City has allocated $502,500 and $97,500 from Alameda Point. The City Manager stated three approaches to funding the grant program could be: 1) requesting support through a foundation or contributions to leverage the funds, 2) reviewing current budgeted expenditures that could be reduced and reallocated, and 3) allowing spending from the reserves; noted a revolving loan program is a good option but has a time restriction; stated there are ways to expand the current $600,000 by allowing businesses to take less than the $7,500 maximum award. Councilmember Oddie stated that he recommends a loan program through the City to businesses; the City can loan money to the fund; should a non-profit move forward, the money can be repaid to the General Fund. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 2 April 21, 2020",CityCouncil/2020-05-05.pdf CityCouncil,2022-02-15,23,"Discussed her use of the pools; expressed support for drop-in swim lessons; stated changes might be needed; urged Council to take the matter slowly and work with membership to ensure changes can be implemented over time; expressed concern about the pool being closed for the summer due to changes: Katherine Van Dusen, Alameda ASPA. Stated that he sees demographic diversity at the pools regularly; Lincoln Park pool could benefit from signage; questioned why Council cannot grant a longer lease for ASPA; discussed fair rate structure plans; stated that he has not seen the City publicize the existing swim facilities; expressed support for ASPA managing the facilities: Jim Strehlow, Alameda. Urged Council to consider equity, accessibility and the need for community input; stated the City has made efforts to seek community input on other park features; expressed support for the opportunity of a large scale community swimming pool, but the resource will not be accessible for years; stated the lease with ASPA represents an immediate opportunity to increase access: Maia Werner-Avidon, Alameda. Urged Council to renew the lease with ASPA; stated the pools operate differently than others; ASPA offers unstructured weekend time and drop-in swim classes; other pools do not have the capacity for swim lessons; ASPA could do a better job of making information available regarding pool operations and signage could be improved; ASPA is a community resource: Mary Matella, ASPA. Stated ASPA has allowed generations to be water-safe; members thrive in the current ASPA environment; discussed the buildings and facilities; stated maintenance of the facilities is largely performed by volunteers; the levels of volunteering are not barriers to membership; ASPA facilities are vital; urged Council to secure an exception to the Surplus Lands Act, renegotiate the lease and use the resources of the City: Betsy Mathieson, ASPA. Urged Council not to continue negotiating with ASPA and direct staff to explore alternatives for the management of the Franklin and Lincoln Park pools; stated the time has come to start a new chapter; the model for the pools results in private, exclusive memberships inside public parks; there are issues of safety, compliance and access; urged Council end the lease with ASPA: Kristan LaVietes, Alameda. Stated that he is an avid swimmer; expressed support for the options to swim in Alameda; stated ASPA needs to be preserved as an important option; ASPA must continue to expand and improve; discussed the private pool being on City land; the pool is a co-op; the cost of membership is cheaper than most drop-in services: Erich Stiger, Alameda. Stated the Franklin and Lincoln Park pools are a special part of the community; the pools provide important life-saving skills; membership costs are reasonable; the pools have been managed by volunteer members; urged Council to continue allowing ASPA to manage the pools; stated volunteer hours are a great way to be inclusive and build community: Carmen Reid, Alameda. Stated the community is rich and can pay for access to pools; urged people consider the differences in income; stated access to pools is not free or nominal for those who cannot afford membership: Roger Slattery, Alameda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 15, 2022 21",CityCouncil/2022-02-15.pdf CityCouncil,2009-10-20,23,"be decided administratively, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. The Planning Services Manager stated the proposed ordinance would require that a project requesting a density bonus to go before the Planning Board. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the density bonus ordinance waivers match the State requirement, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired how other cities handle density bonus ordinances. The Planning Services Manager responded some cities have adopted density bonus ordinances; stated other cities rely upon State regulations; some cities include more concessions and incentives in an ordinance, some have less. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the default is the State's ordinance; cities have the option to tailor a density bonus ordinance. The Planning Services Manager stated the City is better off adopting its own community regulations. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the density bonus has been handled in the past; stated the Collin's case was not approved. The City Attorney stated the case is still under litigation. The Planning Services Manager stated a new Collin's application requests a density bonus; the previous application was denied based on other findings not related to density bonus. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the City would be safeguarded with the new density bonus. The Planning Services Manager responded the Collin's project has a variety of issues; stated that he does not think the proposed density bonus ordinance would be the determining factor; issues revolve around open space and lot layout. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether an application has been submitted and whether the new proposal fits within the density bonus ordinance. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009",CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf CityCouncil,2010-02-16,23,"differently; the Council/Board/Commission can request that SunCal consider a different amendment to the ENA, such as releasing negotiation documents. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated SunCal letters discussed withdrawing agenda items; SunCal does not withdraw agenda items; SunCal can just withdraw their requests; the agenda items stay in place. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated SunCal's letter indicates that they want to formally address the Notice of Default in formal discussions. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she would be more comfortable if SunCal was given the same courtesy that they gave the City in terms of asking specifically what the Council/Board/Commission would like to see as an amendment to the ENA. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that his motion is to direct the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director to ask just that [about a specific ENA amendment to lift confidentiality restrictions]. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated certain things will never come out of closed session; however, the vast majority should be released and discussed. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 5 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission February 16, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf CityCouncil,2017-09-05,23,"387 encroachment ordinances. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 3. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she hopes the landlords and tenants get together to come to a solution. Vice Mayor Vella inquired what is the City's involvement because the matter is a referendum of a City ordinance. The City Manager responded cost. Vice Mayor Vella inquired what the cost is to the City. The City Manager responded that is dependent on which election the Council decides to put on the item; the June election would be more expensive than placing the item on the general election in November. Mayor Spencer inquired what the specific cost would be. The City Clerk responded it would depend on how many other items are on the June ballot; worse case would be around $700,000; if the item is added to the November ballot, the cost would be approximately $25,000 for printing and typesetting costs. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1. (17-517) Adoption of Resolution Appointing Patricia Lamborn as a Member of the Planning Board; and (17-517A) Adoption of Resolution Appointing Alan Teague as a Member of the Planning Board. Not heard. (17-518) Recommendation to Appoint Gene Kahane and Cathy Dana as Alameda's Poet Laureates. Not heard. (17-519) SUMMARY: Introduce Two Ordinances that Resolve Two Encroachment Issues on City Property in Order to Facilitate the Start of Construction of the Cross Alameda Trail Project along Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, Between Main and Webster Streets. Introduction of Ordinance Approving an Amended and Restated Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of an Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-09-05.pdf CityCouncil,2021-07-20,22,"options related to cost effectiveness and for looking at the social and equity impacts, not costs: Nancy Shemick, Alameda. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the strictness of ARPA reporting requirements. The Assistant City Manager stated the reporting requirements are frequent; staff must update the federal government on the use of funds on a quarterly basis; the federal government has stressed the importance of adhering to the eligible project list and ensuring accountability for dollars spent; the funds are meant to be an investment in the community; the City must ensure good care is being taken of the public dollar; the overall intent is for local government to do their very best to be transparent with the community and invest in a way that is consistent with the interim final rule from the United States (US) Department of Treasury. The Finance Director displayed a calendar for reporting dates; stated August 31st is the first due date for an interim report; there are many strict requirements; by October 31st , staff will need to complete a second and third quarter report. Councilmember Knox White expressed support for coming back with concepts; stated that he is supportive of the housing proposal; he is open to considering some form of hybrid which includes business assistance; business assistance does not include grants; the one-time funds are meant for rebuilding the resilience of the business areas; expressed support for permanent draws to business districts in order to strengthen the local economy; stated that he will only consider the matter be placed into revenue loss, if the City has flexibility to use funding on desired projects; expressed concern for back- filling the budget; stated that he appreciates the one-time only costs; the housing proposal is the most impactful; he agrees that the funding is a one-time opportunity and should be used to have ongoing and strong future outcomes; expressed concern about squandering funds. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about dedicating funding to purchase the Marina Village Inn; stated that she would like to spread the funding to impact as many people as possible; expressed support for prioritizing internet and Smart City wireless hot spots; stated the digital gap now has an opportunity to be closed; some people cannot access the current meeting being held via Zoom; people without internet access have been left out of society for one and a half years; outlined Exhibit 5 of the staff report; stated the health services recommendation is important; people impacted by COVID need help; expressed support for assistance to households; stated services which cover low-income is a good use of the funding; expressed concern about dedicating four-fifths of the funding towards a project that will impact approximately 50 people versus a program which can help thousands of people. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would have supported some of the funding going towards Jean Sweeney Park; he accepts staff's analysis of the park being ineligible; he supports one of the categories being housing and Marina Village Inn; $20 million of the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 20, 2021 15",CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf PlanningBoard,2005-06-27,22,"proposed for the garage. She noted that it would not staff-intensive, and that there would be no pay gate to queue up for at the end of the evening. Vice President Cook noted that there had been more opposition to the theater than the garage, and added that the Board listened carefully to each public speaker. She noted that some items had been addressed previously, such as retail on the ground floor. Mr. Piziali supported the use of variegated brick to add more detail to the façade. Ms. Ott noted that Michael Stanton believed that the symmetry of the pattern with respect to the horizontal openings would look better with a more subtle brick design. President Cunningham believed that the header courses should be fixed, and he was very concerned about the current brick detail design. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Ott confirmed that one of the criteria was that the exterior façade would be consistent with whatever the Planning Board approves. She noted that Michael Stanton specified the quality of the materials in a very detailed way, based on the sample board provided. Vice President Cook noted that the DDA discussed the City's parking operations plan, which would be submitted in a timely manner and examined in detail by the City Council. President Cunningham addressed Mr. Spangler's comment regarding an exit strategy, and noted that there was no way to tell what would happen in the future. He believed the floor-to-floor heights could be adjusted, and that the conversion of a parking garage was problematic. He noted that designing structures with an eye towards adaptive reuse before the intended use has begun will compromise the project from the beginning. He hoped that Park Street business would require this volume of parking. Vice President Cook believed that without the Cineplex, this parking structure would appear too massive on its own. Mr. Lynch requested the inclusion of the financials at the next presentation. He suggested that with the recent Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain, that the City Council and City Attorney provide information with respect to potential litigation. Ms. Mariani noted that she agreed with the modifications suggested by the Board. She did not agree with the scale of the parking garage, and agreed that the City needed parking. M/S Piziali/Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-05-28 to approve a Use Permit and Final design review, including consideration of Section 106 findings, for a new 352- space parking structure at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue, generally on the Video Maniacs site, with the following modifications: 1. The size of the poster boxes would be enhanced with contrasting brick detail and Planning Board Minutes Page 22 June 27, , 2005",PlanningBoard/2005-06-27.pdf CityCouncil,2005-12-06,22,"The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 8 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf CityCouncil,2007-01-16,22,"The Development Manager stated said item was in the bid form as a deduct alternative; the cast in place walls are $80,000 less. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the concrete appearance would be the same, to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether $150,000 of the reserves would be used, leaving approximately $300,000. The Development Manager responded approximately $140,000 of the reserves would be used when small cost savings are taken into consideration stated approximately $275,000 would remain. Mayor Johnson inquired whether items could be added back in if more contingency was not used, to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Commissioner deHaan stated the Cineplex went through value engineering; inquired whether architectural items were taken away. The Development Manager responded value engineering was considered when the bid was received from Overaa Construction because the original price was higher; stated very little value-engineered changes are anticipated for the Cineplex. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the removed items have an impact on the Cineplex. The Development Manager responded the design changes are minor ; stated the Planning and Building Director would determine whether the changes constitute substantial changes to design review. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Planning and Building Director would review the changes, to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the project is on schedule since Cineplex funding is not in place. The Development Manager responded milestones and schedules are noted on Attachment 2; stated the theater and garage are on schedule; the developer hopes to be finished with the Cineplex by the end of the year; the final Cineplex schedule would be presented to Council once the General Contractor is on board and construction starts. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 2 January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf CityCouncil,2018-07-24,22,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is fine with allowing the permits as long as the number of businesses remains the same. Councilmember Oddie, Vice Mayor Vella, Mayor Spencer and Councilmember Matarrese expressed support for allowing the permits on a first come first serve basis. Mayor Spencer stated that she would be interested in increasing the cap on both; inquired whether there is interest in changing the caps, to which Councilmembers responded in the negative. Mayor Spencer stated the caps remain at 1 and 4. The Economic Development Manager inquired whether the buffer zone should remain for the nursery and dispensary. Councilmember Oddie expressed support for keeping 1,000 feet for public and private schools and 600 feet for others, pursuant to the School Board resolution. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie wants to include Alameda Recreation and Parks Department (ARPD) sites, to which Councilmember Oddie responded the School Board resolution did not address ARPD sites. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is fine with the two tiers. Mayor Spencer concurred with Councilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella. Councilmember Matarrese opposed the recommendation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would propose a different two tiers: 1,000 feet from schools and parks with recreation centers, including the Boys and Girls Club and 600 feet from after school programs, Ruby's tumbling and maybe even pre-schools; she would want to see outreach. Mayor Spencer stated a majority supports the two tiers. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 July 24, 2018",CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf PlanningBoard,2012-03-12,22,"Board member Knox White felt that staff should discuss the disposition with the City Council once the zoning is approved. Ms. Ott explained that the project description would be the Reuse Plan. So, the concentration of the residential units will result from the zoning amendments and that feeds directly into the project description and the environmental impact report. Their meeting with the City Council is aimed at discussing the bigger picture, whereas with the Board it is more detailed. The larger question for the Board and Council is whether they want to concentrate the units in a certain area from a disposition standpoint instead of sprinkling them everywhere. Board member Knox White replied then put them in the Town Center District. Ms. Ott replied they talked about having a minimum of 425 units to start in the Town Center. Board member Knox White replied the Town Center area is where development should be built up first and the rest will follow. Ms. Ott said if development could build 425 multifamily housing units that is a good start to the Town Center since it is a much smaller area. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked how staff will include a mix of housing types discussed earlier and how they will respond to the input regarding housing placed throughout Alameda Point. Ms. Ott replied the Town Center District is the agreed upon residential site even if there is no cap in the zoning and staff has discussed residential along Main Street in the commercial and the southern area. Mr. Thomas replied he would look at the Town Center District and the residential center. In order to get a mix of residential types, staff is starting in the base layer to get the form- based ideas in there. He would use graphics from previous planning efforts or start laying out blocks in both of these areas. The SunCal Plan does allow a finer grain of four different residential categories. He suggested that staff come back at the next meeting and present specific housing types. He also pointed out that Board member Knox White's comments raised an important question about how many units are needed to make the Town Center District a vibrant area. Ms. Ott explained they contemplated on whether the residential uses require a gradient the closer one gets to the Town Center District. What they heard from the development community is that the land near the Town Center District is the most valuable land with market potential. Vice President Burton asked Ms. Off if the City is required to document the exact number of residential units in the Zoning ordinance. Approved Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 23 March 12, 2012",PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf CityCouncil,2017-10-03,22,"(Councilmember Oddie) Councilmember Oddie made brief comments regarding the referral. Mayor Spencer inquired when staff plans to report back. The City Manager responded staff will discuss preliminary data at the WETA meeting; the matter will go to the Transportation Commission in November and return to Council in December. Mayor Spencer inquired whether representatives from other agencies will be present, to which the City Manager responded WETA and AC Transit will be present. Mayor Spencer inquired why Councilmember Oddie requested a workshop instead of a regular agenda item. Councilmember Oddie responded that he requested a workshop to have a regular dialogue instead of having speakers only have 3 minutes to speak and Council not engage with the speakers. The City Manager stated the workshop would be a special meeting. Mayor Spencer inquired when the workshop would take place. Councilmember Oddie responded that he has no preference. The City Manager stated the workshop is scheduled for the first meeting in December. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie would like the workshop to occur prior to the regular Council meeting, to which Councilmember Oddie responded a lot of people cannot make a 6:00 p.m. meeting. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the regular City Council meeting could be recessed to allow the back and forth dialogue, then return to the regular meeting. The City Clerk expressed concern with having to juggle the meetings with other agencies involved. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the workshop could occur in between the regular City Council meeting, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. The City Attorney stated conducting the meeting in said manner would be messy. Councilmember Matarrese stated the workshop should be a Saturday meeting; he would also like to address the rest of the north shore development issues with WETA and BCDC and the water taxis at the same meeting. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 October 3, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf CityCouncil,2012-06-19,22,"the pipes do not meet standards. Mr. Lopes responded staff told him everything would have to be replaced, which he does not believe; inspection will pass once the valves are installed. Mayor Gilmore stated the motion includes that there will be a complete inspection of the gas lines, including the valves and material composition of the lines. Mr. Lopes stated a couple of spots would be uncovered to check the material, depth and test pressure. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry whether a relationship constitutes a conflict, the City Attorney responded not unless the Councilmember declares bias. Vice Mayor Bonta stated that he does not believe he technically has a conflict, he just did so out of an abundance of caution. The City Attorney stated the rule of necessity allows for a drawing to be held to make a quorum; Vice Mayor Bonta does not appear to have a true conflict. Mayor Gilmore and Councilmember Tam expressed they do not have a true conflict either. Vice Mayor Bonta and Councilmember Tam voluntarily recused themselves and left the dais. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the County required payment of a prior assessment due to the property transfer, to which Mr. Cederborg responded in the affirmative; stated the amount is $7,800. Council discussed whether or not the amount could be the School District parcel tax. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the amount is not being disputed, to which Mr. Cederborg responded the property owner has worked in good faith and citations have continued to accrue. Councilmember Johnson stated health and safety concerns are greater for commercial space. * (12-328) Councilmember Johnson moved approval of considering the next three ordinances [paragraph nos. 12-329, 12-330, and 12-331 after 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 June 19, 2012",CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf CityCouncil,2019-03-19,22,"Councilmember Oddie inquired if the motion could be amended to add automobiles after TNC's, to which Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he does not want to encourage the project to offer TNC's. Councilmember Oddie stated that it would be helpful to have staff return with an update on the status of the shuttle. Councilmember Vella stated rideshare should have a designated safe drop-off space. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1. The City Clerk noted the item is be declared as continued to April 2, 2019. Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like an item to return in the future related to including ground floor retail, commercial and residential buildings in future development projects. *** Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 11:44 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:49 p.m. *** (19-175) Resolution No. 15512, ""Amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 Budget"" Adopted; and (19-175A) Resolution No. 15513, ""Approving Workforce Changes to the FY2018-19 Mid-Year Budget Update in the Planning, Building and Transportation Department, Finance Department and Public Works Department"" Adopted; and (19-175B) Resolution No. 15514, ""Amending the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule Establishing the Classification of Combination Building Inspector I, Retitling the Combination Building Inspector Classification to Combination Building Inspector II, and Providing for Equity Adjustments to Increase the Base Pay of the Classifications of Senior Combination Building Inspector, Senior Building Code Compliance Officer, Senior Fire Code Compliance Officer, Combination Building Inspector II, and Fire/Building Code Compliance Officer Effective March 31, 2019.' Adopted. The Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) is a trade of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 March 19, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-03-19.pdf GolfCommission,2018-02-15,22,"Corica Golf 2018 PREVIEW Annual Plan North Course Renovation Plans Submission - Updated plans have been submitted to City and are under review for proposed upgrades to original repair plans for North Course. Scheduled to go before City Council spring 2018 for review and vote. Objective is to ensure best repair of North and position it as a quality value priced course. North Course Plans Proposed: Propose to close 9-holes at a time to complete repairs Full renovation and elevation of all 18-holes as a parkland redesign to ensure proper drainage and exciting playing conditions Repair and replacement of all tees, fairways, bunkers, roughs & greens Installation of drain tiles and catch basins for improved drainage New cart paths 18",GolfCommission/2018-02-15.pdf CityCouncil,2022-03-01,22,"which will allow time for conversation to occur with interested groups; the earliest increases would go into effect would be June 1st; the City Attorney provided workable solutions. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is proposing providing staff with direction to bring back the matter and not move forward at the current meeting, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Knox White stated the matter is not easy; the initial discussion occurred when the pandemic had just begun, people were being forced to stay in their houses and jobs were being shut down; he does not see a scenario in the next 6 to 9 months where the same will occur again even with future surges and variants; he did not imagine the rent moratorium lasting two years; Council should honor the 60 day notice; Council committed to allowing landlords to bank increases; public comment received from landlords and tenants suggests a middle ground has be found; expressed support for the ordinance and ensuring a 60 day notice; stated that he would also like to have a 60 day notice instead of allowing the banked AGA as soon as the pandemic is over; when the pandemic is over, everyone will know the AGA increases will not be available for another 60 days; if a landlord raises rent 2.7% in June, any other banked AGA cannot be used until the following June; the increase being available for use does not mean landlords can release the banked increases; the system and rules are in place to allow the more phasing; the faster Council allows the 2.7% increase, the less likely people will wait until September 1st when a larger AGA will be in place; the longer Council waits, the more likely landlords will wait until a higher AGA percentage occurs; expressed support for Council acting tonight; stated that he is not supportive of delaying the matter. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the additional 60 day notice before banked increases can occur; expressed concern about payment shock; stated the current situation is different than two years ago; there are vaccines. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she prefers an effective date of May 1st; she agrees with the comments provided by Councilmember Knox White; inquired whether there is a cap on how much landlords can use for banked rent increases. The Interim Base Reuse Manager responded landlords can bank up to 8% and can implement increases that are based on the current year AGA plus up to 3%. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over how large the CPI will be with an additional 3%; stated it is appropriate to begin loosening the restriction; she is concerned about the increases since she is a renter; the increases will hit hard if the City does not allow for slow and gradual increases; it is appropriate to approve 2.7% now; staff's report is balanced and includes a lot analysis to try to figure out how to unwind the matter without hitting tenants with a difficult increase. Councilmember Daysog stated a number of renters and landlords are hurting during the pandemic; the staff recommendation is a middle-ground approach and is reasonable; the recommendation takes into consideration the concerns of renters and landlords; Council should begin to move forward with the matter; many other cities that have rent control have realized landlords cannot be hindered from performing economically; landlords and renters must cover costs. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of staff's recommendation [introduction of the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 1, 2022 20",CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf CityCouncil,2019-07-16,22,"Vice Mayor Knox White requested the language be added. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the paragraph related to March 16th be removed. Vice Mayor Knox White requested ""in recent months.. be changed to ""in December 2018;"" outlined further edits. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for having the paragraph mimic the language in the Grand Jury report. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft agreed; outlined further edits. Vice Mayor Knox White suggested replacing the word report with proposal. Councilmember Daysog stated there is an inherent problem with the report under the third paragraph. Vice Mayor Knox White stated the discussion is becoming too prescriptive; the Grand Jury would prefer to hear to recommendations are in motion. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is trying to convey that the effort is not to re- change the plain text language of 7-3; he anticipates updates to enforcement processes. Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of Recommendation 19-2. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Absent: Councilmembers Oddie and Vella - 2.] Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined Recommendation 19-3. Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he proposes option 2. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a reason Council cannot implement a change now. The City Attorney responded because the change is not agendized; stated if the Council wishes to implement the policy, it should be agendized for a future meeting. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it is necessary to wait 6 months, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative. The City Manager stated this particular item is more complex and can return in 4 months for discussion. The City Attorney stated there are ongoing claims which may or may not be implicated Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 17 July 16, 2019",CityCouncil/2019-07-16.pdf