{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-01-19", "page": 8, "text": "", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2012-10-09", "page": 4, "text": "", "path": "GolfCommission/2012-10-09.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2019-02-27", "page": 7, "text": "", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2019-02-27.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-12-13", "page": 6, "text": "", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-12-13.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-12-18", "page": 4, "text": "", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-12-18", "page": 6, "text": "", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-12-18.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2021-05-13", "page": 6, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2021-05-13.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 12, "text": "", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2012-09-11", "page": 4, "text": "", "path": "GolfCommission/2012-09-11.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-09-21", "page": 6, "text": "", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2020-11-12", "page": 7, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2020-11-12.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2012-12-11", "page": 4, "text": "", "path": "GolfCommission/2012-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 14, "text": "", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 78, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 8, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 14, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 15, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 16, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 17, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 18, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 21, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 22, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 25, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 26, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 28, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 29, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 30, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 31, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 32, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 33, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 35, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 36, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 37, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 38, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 44, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 46, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 52, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2012-11-13", "page": 6, "text": "", "path": "GolfCommission/2012-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2012-06-12", "page": 4, "text": "", "path": "GolfCommission/2012-06-12.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 9, "text": "  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2781417&GUID=16211D8D-2D63-\n4E9A-8531-6366B3DB8COD&Options=&Search=\nPanel member Grunt asked about the ferry terminal.\nMs. Ott said that the new Seaplane Lagoon terminal will be right in the heart of the\ndevelopment in the Enterprise District. This is the number one issue for developers:\nwhen is the ferry terminal coming? It will operate as a joint consolidated service with the\nMain Street Terminal. Most likely, the Seaplane Terminal will be the commute ferry with\nMain Street/Oakland supplying mid-day and weekend service. We did look at the\nrelocating the Main Street Terminal, but it would undermine the Oakland service. The\nOakland line cannot sustain itself and depends on Alameda ridership.\nPanel member Mik commented that Main Street is the most popular ferry terminal and is at\ncapacity. They are selling out their boats. They are really adding capacity with the new\nterminal.\nMs. Ott added that ferry ridership has grown 60 percent since 2012, which is unheard of\nfor public transit.\nPanel member Chubb asked about the maker space cluster.\nMs. Ott said that the buildings are being redeveloped by master developers. They will\nsubdivide them into smaller spaces for specialty manufacturing, artist spaces and some\noffice. One floor will most likely become work/live, with tight restrictions on the residential\ncomponent.\nPanel member Monteko asked who pays for the infrastructure in Site B.\nMs. Ott said the developer or end user through a negotiated land deal with the City.\nAlameda Point's infrastructure costs are approximately $600 million, or $1 million per acre.\nPanel member Elsesser asked about the square footage of entitled space and height\nlimits.\nMs. Ott answered that there is approximately 5.5 million square feet for all of Alameda\nPoint, which is a lot of entitlement. We do not want low intensity development; we want\njobs or catalyst benefit. The height limit is 100 feet. It is a very permissive, a big\nenvelope to create a lot of flexibility. We do not know who the end user(s) will be. We\nwant to create an opportunistic envelope to take advantage of each businesses' vision.\nIdeally, we want a diversified base and not just one end user.\nPanel member Monteko asked how is Cushman Wakefield advising on the commercial\nmarket for companies being pushed out of San Francisco and moving to Oakland. On the\none hand, it is someone who wants the flexibility to expand quickly but they want it\nyesterday. How are you going to address that?\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 9 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2017-09-27", "page": 3, "text": " https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3158563&GUID=FA3FBDE5\nB456-4391-8D95-1AC8D71F82AA&FullText=1\nCommissioner Soules asked what the timeline is to meet the stated goals.\nStaff Member Ott said the goals were based on a 15 year timeline.\nCommissioner Palmer asked what dollar amounts the actual developers are required to\ncontribute to the plan and not just their residents.\nStaff Member Ott gave examples of contributions that developers have been required to\ncontribute, such as $10,000,000 for a new ferry terminal at Alameda Pt.\nCommissioner Palmer asked why 2030 was chosen as the benchmark for measuring the\nplan's success.\nBill Hurrell, CDM Smith, said they wanted to pick a horizon that was long enough to\nallow the plan to have an impact, but not so long that they would not have confidence in\npredicting what would happen in the future.\nVice-Chair Miley opened the public hearing.\nChristina Hanson, employee of Harbor Bay Isle and Central Avenue resident, said the\ncommunity is concerned about the proposal to add bus lanes on Island Drive. She said\nthey do not believe this is the right solution for the problem. She said the median and\ntrees are very important to the community. She said there are also safety concerns\naround the elementary school with adding bus lanes there.\nJim Strehlow said we have added 5,000 new homes and asked where the 5,000 new\njobs were to go with them. He said the city should be prioritizing job creation but is in fact\ndoing the opposite. He said stopping growth is part of the real solution. He said\nAlamedans want another bridge or tunnel. He said the public meetings are too rigid for\ngenuine discussion, or speakers are hand picked. He asked that more discussion time\nbe allowed for future meetings on these issues. He said when he drives kids for a non-\nprofit he is a single driver off the island. He said he is mad because this plan is not a\nsolution to the transportation problem.\nPat Potter, CASA, said she is concerned about the Transportation Awareness\nCampaign. She said we need to drill down deep and understand what prevents\nindividuals from changing their behavior.\nAndrea Wuttke, transportation planner and infrastructure economist, said a bus system\nis a supplemental mass transit vehicle. She said her plan would be to take 20,000 rides\na day out of the system to connect the island to Oakland via an aerial tramway.\n3", "path": "TransportationCommission/2017-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2018-12-03", "page": 2, "text": " https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3760863&GUID=29DE963A-\n62EC-4E90-B019-0B7972B1A813&FullText=1\nCommissioner Nachtigall asked how the changes would look at the Bay Ship entrance\nduring shift change.\nStaff Member Wikstrom said that if there was a queue of cars entering the Bay Ship\nproperty it could cause a small backup on the westbound lane.\nCommissioner Soules asked how long the project would take to complete once started.\nStaff Member Wikstrom said it would take less than two weeks to complete. He added\nthat the project will cost less than $100,000 and can be completed with already allocated\nfunds.\nCommissioner Soules asked for more details about potential traffic impacts and analysis.\nStaff Member Wikstrom said the level of service analysis showed that the change would\nbe acceptable. He said the cars currently waiting behind left turning vehicles are already\ndelayed. He said the highest 15 minute volumes are about 100 cars. He said the\nmaximum traffic is about 300 cars per hour. He said a single lane intersection can\nhandle 500 cars per hour without problem. He said the number of users of the Main St.\nterminal will likely decrease when the Seaplane Lagoon terminal opens.\nCommissioner Soules asked that in the future the staff reports include details on where\nthe problems get pushed to.\nChair Miley asked if lowering the 35 mile per hour speed limit was considered.\nStaff Member Wikstrom said they did not plan to do that at this time. He said they may\nhave more of a basis to reduce the speed limit after the changes are implemented.\nChair Miley asked what percentage of the collisions involved bikes or pedestrians.\nStaff Member Wikstrom said that most of the data he looked at were vehicle to vehicle.\nCommissioner Hans asked how this would impact the overflow parking near the nursery.\nStaff Member Wikstrom said there would be no change to the parking conditions.\nCommissioner Palmer said we are using 2017 data here and it seems like ridership is up\nwith the larger boats. She asked what was meant by a \"calming effect.\"\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 8\nDecember 3, 2018\nTransportation Commission", "path": "TransportationCommission/2018-12-03.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2019-09-25", "page": 7, "text": " https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4139823&GUID=F4F57230-\nD1C1-4647-85B9-C4DCDEB6B4C7&FullText=1\nCommissioner Weitze asked if there are punitive or enforcement aspects to Vision Zero.\nStaff Member Foster said that increased enforcement is part of other cities' plans. She\nsaid San Francisco initially focused enforcement on locations and violations where\nfatalities and collisions were most likely.\nStaff Member Wheeler said she sees it as a data driven process to perhaps redistribute\nwhere enforcement occurs in order to have the most impact on behavior, rather than\nsimply increasing overall enforcement.\nCommissioner Weitze asked if reconsidering the standards and process for placement of\nstop signs was part of the Vision Zero process.\nStaff Member Wheeler said they have not looked at that as a standard to evaluate, given\nthat federal guidelines exist on stop sign placement.\nChair Soules opened the public hearing.\nJim Strehlow said NACTO implementation in San Francisco did not make him feel safer\nwhile cycling. He said it took him out of his way, compared to the older, more direct route.\nHe recalled a recent fatality in San Francisco on a NACTO redesigned intersection. He\nwarned the Commission not to believe that this would be a perfect solution.\nChair Soules closed the public hearing.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand said she supports the Vision Zero movement and looks forward\nto developing the policy.\nCommissioner Yuen said she strongly supports Vision Zero and is excited by the focus on\nequity. She said she would like to see a focus on design and engineering over\nenforcement, which can be punitive. She asked that the annual report be brought back to\nthe Transportation Commission.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand made a motion that the Vision Zero Policy be\nrecommended to the City Council with the amendment that the annual report come\nto the Transportation Commission. Commissioner Yuen seconded the motion. The\nmotion passed 5-0.\n5-D 2019-7284\nUpdate on Active Transportation Plan\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2019-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-04-26", "page": 2, "text": " https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4913556&GUID=D03018E1-\nB78C-4DAE-8B76-1862FE538D8A&FullText=1.\nPresident Teague opened the board's clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Rona Rothenberg wanted to know why air conditioning was called out as\n\"baseline\" as opposed to other common applications in this climate which was not as\nintensive in air conditioning as a particular application.\nStaff Member Mieler said that calling out the air conditioning was standard practice in new\ndevelopment. She also introduced Farhad Farahmand, a consultant, who had been\nadvising the staff on this ordinance.\nFarhad Farahmand, TRC Energy Consultant, explained the underlining reasons for the air\nconditioning assumption.\nBoard Member Hanson Hom asked for clarification that this ordinance would only apply to\nnew structures and would not apply to ADU's if the main structure was already gas. Also,\nif a person were to completely remodel their kitchen (complete tear-out) he assumed this\nordinance would not apply as well.\nStaff Member Mieler said that was correct, this would be for completely new construction.\nBoard Member Ron Curtis was concerned about low-cost housing and wanted to know\nthe total difference in utility cost from a completely electric house vs a gas-powered house.\nMr. Farahmand said unfortunately he did not have a complete answer right now. He said\nthey were currently working on that analysis for the utilities. They were seeing it as being\naround seven dollars a month, couple hundred dollars a year based on surrounding\nutilities.\nBoard Member Curtis referred to the table in the presentation that showed that the electric\ndryer was six dollars more than a gas dryer, and the electric stove was a few more dollars\na month than the gas stove.\nMr. Farahmand explained how these appliances do add increases but several other\nfactors decrease. There was a balancing act between everything.\nBoard Member Curtis asked if a heat pump was more energy efficient than a furnace.\nMr. Farahmand said yes absolutely.\nBoard Member Curtis said good, he then reiterated his concerns about the monthly\nexpenses for families in low-cost housing.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 18\nApril 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-04-26.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-12", "page": 17, "text": " https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5015994&GUID=174D0132-\n9553-4E86-A703-5637C6E8FF46&FullText=1.\nNo board member wished to pull any item for review.\n9-B 2021-1106\nOral Report - Future Public Meetings and Upcoming Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment Projects\nStaff Member Tai announced that at the Monday, July 26 meeting they would have a full\nagenda and bring back the 1435 Webster which was the Study Session from today. There\nwould also be a minor planned development amendment to a small setback issue for a\nbuilding under construction at the Harbor Bay Business Park. The staff would also bring\nforward an architectural design review approval for the medical respite center at McKay\nAve, a draft of the Vision Zero Action Plan, and another General Plan update. He also\nupdated the board that Board Member Ruiz's question about 53 Killybegs had been\naddressed so she had withdrawn her request for a Design Review.\nDirector Thomas gave an update that at the July 6th City Council meeting they decided to\nappeal the RHNA numbers on a 3-2 vote. The appeal was submitted on Friday, July 9th.\nPresident Teague asked about the other 4 items.\nDirector Thomas said they did not do anything. They debated a bunch of aspects on it and\ndecided not to do anything with the resolution. He explained the next actions for the staff\nand said they should hear back about the appeal in November.\nBoard Member Hom wanted to know about the rationale for the appeal.\nDirector Thomas explained that between Article 26, sea-level rise, transportation, and\nseismic safety the council believed that it had a strong argument for appeal. The staff had\nalso introduced the issue of the Navy Cap as an argument. They wanted the region to\nknow about the Cap to get help for it. He explained more about the appeal process and\nwhat they had asked for. The staff would be working on two paths, one if the appeal was\naccepted and the other if it is rejected.\nBoard Member Rothenberg asked about the Encinal Terminals Action that had been\nbundled with the other items. She thought it would be unfortunate if that languished\nbecause the developer needs direction one way or another.\nDirector Thomas said staff agreed and had made it clear to the council that they would still\nbe bringing projects forward regardless of the appeal.\nPresident Teague asked what was the current state of the Encinal Terminals.\nDirector Thomas explained they had an approved 2017 Master Plan with no Tidelands\nExchange and then they also have the Planning Board recommendation for the Tidelands\nExchange Master Plan. They also have the Resolution from the Planning Board\nrecommending to the council to approve the Tidelands Exchange.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 17 of 18\nJuly 12, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-07-26", "page": 13, "text": " https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5031891&GUID=164AODE7-\nA13A-41FF-9A71-993AE1305D2A&FullText=1.\nDoug Biggs, the applicant, discussed a few things then introduced the architect for the\nproject, Chris Ebert of Ankrom Moisan and Sarita Govani of Mantle Landscape\nArchitecture.\nMr. Ebert presented where he discussed the design intent and goals.\nMs. Govani also presented where she discussed how the landscaping would support the\nbuilding design and programming at the facility.\nPresident Teague opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Ruiz thanked everyone for their presentations. She asked how users and\nvisitors would arrive. She wanted more elaboration on why they turned the front door away\nfrom the street.\nMr. Biggs discussed the 3 major uses of the center, a respite center for patients requiring\naftercare, and those patients would be picked up from the hospital and brought to the site\nby staff. There would be no walk-in opportunities. The downstairs will be a clinic that would\nserve the patients in the respite center but also serve residents of the senior living facility.\nThose patients will get to the clinic by a little walkway. The front area will be a resource\ncenter for residents of Alameda only who are at risk of becoming homeless or recently\nhomeless and will be by appointment only. They normally would have an opening at the\nfront but one of the concerns by neighbors was that people would loiter at the front or lines\nforming on the street. This is why all entrances will be off the street.\nBoard Member Ruiz then wanted clarification on the materiality of the building.\nMr. Ebert said the plan was for it to be an Exterior Insulation Finishing System (EIFS) and\nthey were thinking of a standard smooth texture.\nBoard Member Ruiz also asked about the visibility of the vents on the roof.\nMr. Ebert said you would be able to see them a bit but this was the least visible he had\never used.\nBoard Member Ruiz asked about the vents and roof design. She also asked if he had\nthought about using a concrete tile roof instead of a shingle roof.\nMr. Ebert explained what type of vents they would use and how it would work with the\nroof. He said that they had not looked at concrete tiles but had looked at asphalt and\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 13 of 21\nJuly 26, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-07-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-10-27", "page": 2, "text": " https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182985&GUID=6CFE355D-9085-\n46A7-84A4-6FB800501F57&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Scott Weitze clarified his comments for Agenda item 6-C, his concern was for the\nscheduling, he felt the scheduling could be better.\nCommissioner Rebecca Kohlstrand clarified her comments for Agenda item 6-B.\nCommissioner Weitze made a motion to approve the minutes with these edits and Vice-Chair Tina\nYuen seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 4-0,\nCommissioners Nachtigall and Hans abstained due to their absence at this meeting.\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6A. Endorse the City Council's Adoption of the Vision Zero Action Plan (Lisa Foster, Senior\nTransportation Coordinator) (Action Item)\nLisa Foster, a Senior Transportation Coordinator, introduced the item and gave a presentation. The\nstaff report and attachments can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5182986&GUID=2C8EE9A4-BCB9-\n4772-AAFD-3E9D1F4C119C&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Clarifying Questions for #6A\nCommissioner Weitze asked about the socially vulnerable area around Webster and the Webster\nTube since there was not much of a population there and asked if another analysis has been done\nsince the map updates.\nStaff Member Foster said they had not done another analysis since removing certain areas but they\nwere planning on updating the Socially Vulnerable Map.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand asked about the High-Injury Corridor Map and wanted to know why\nthe number differed online from what was in the plan.\nStaff Member Foster said she would double-check that information and make sure they had the\nmost recent map.\nPublic Comments for #6A", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-10-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2022-01-24", "page": 2, "text": " https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5379989&GUID=8240DCA5-\n261F-4060-AAE5-444187E64F94&FullText=1.\nPresident Saheba opened the board clarifying questions.\nBoard Member Alan Teague asked for clarification on where the four different doors lead\nto. He wanted to know how the residential entrance was distinguished from the retail\nentrance.\nHillary Dowden, a developer with UDR, explained the layout and the entrances.\nPresident Saheba opened public comment.\nDavid Israel, the architect, also discussed and explained the difference between retail\nentrances and residential entrances.\nBetsy Mathieson, an Alameda resident, had questions about the hanger doors. She\nwanted to see the South Elevation.\nPresident Saheba closed public comment and opened board discussion.\nBoard Member Teague was not totally in favor of this design but he would not stand in the\nway of its approval. He thought the way it was before made it clear how you were\nsupposed to get into the building, and this way it kinda blends in.\nPresident Saheba agreed that there was no clarity of entryway. He thought there needed\nto be more work, perhaps with the canopy design.\nVice President Teresa Ruiz had requested from the applicant the building plan and thought\nthere was no confusion and was in support of this amendment.\nBoard Member Teague made a motion to approve the amendment. Board Member\nXiomara Cisneros seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and the motion\npassed 6-0 with Board Member Hom absent.\n7-B 2022-1666\nA Public Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update Zoning\nCode Amendments Regarding Definitions and Regulations for Residential and Related\nLand Uses.\nDirector Thomas introduced this item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5379991&GUID=F97232D8-\nE3DF-44D1-9F85-FOEA8FC27926&FullText=1.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 6\nJanuary 24, 2022", "path": "PlanningBoard/2022-01-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-10-24", "page": 6, "text": " ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2858659&GUID=A4EF7EBF-\nEBF-4FC7-B578-1E63AE0E56C9&Options=&Search=&FullText=1\nBoard Member Sullivan asked if we have looked at starter homes and senior homes for\nmiddle class people, not just the rich and very poor.\nStaff Member Thomas explained what affordability levels would be included. He said\nthey are working on designing projects that will have units that are available for\nhouseholds of all income levels by dictating the size of the units.\nBoard Member Sullivan said that young families cannot live in one bedroom apartments\nand we need small starter single family homes.\nStaff Member Ott said 9% of the units would be deed restricted moderate income units.\nShe said the flexibility of building heights and types will make it so that the market rate\nunits are more affordable to middle income buyers.\nBoard Member Curtis said that the boom market helps pay for the affordable housing\nnow, but if the market changes direction, that will not work out for the people who paid\ntop dollar for the market rate units.\nStaff Member Ott explained that the moderate income buyers would not participate in the\nupside or downside equity changes that a market rate purchaser would.\nStaff Member Thomas explained the origin of the 25% inclusionary requirements of\nbuilding at this site.\nBoard Member Knox White asked what could be built within the Historic Zone within the\nstrict design guidelines.\nStaff Member McPhee said the guidelines were targeted at the non-contributing\nbuildings in the historic district.\nBoard Member Mitchell asked if limiting heights to three stories instead of four was\nfeasible.\nStaff Member Ott said they are looking to preserve flexibility in order to make certain\nproduct types viable.\nBoard Member Zuppan said we need to be incorporating plans for indoor\nhomework/library spaces for children on this end of town.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 6 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nOctober 24, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-10-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-05-10", "page": 2, "text": " ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4928037&GUID=63163F6E-\nA2D6-48B5-A4A5-6CE722E8D07D&FullText=1.\nPresident Teague opened public comment.\nThere were no public speakers.\nPresident Teague closed public comments and opened the board/commission questions\nand commentary.\nVice President Asheshh Saheba wanted to know if they had looked at the different parking\nrequirements for the different programs offered for the city.\nDirector Thomas said that parking and parking management are going to be a major focus\nof the city staff's work, and are working on a comprehensive rewrite of the Off-Street\nParking Zoning Code. He explained how it would be different from how it had been in the\npast.\nVice President Saheha believed this was critical to a sustainable future.\nVice-Chair Alysha Nachtigall wanted to know since the plan is to have paid parking at the\nferry terminals if there would also be an increase in transit connections to provide an\nincentive for commuters.\nDirector Thomas said having additional transit connections were critical and AC transit\nis\nworking on a plan with WETA (Water Emergency Transportation Authority). He gave a\nbackground on the work those organizations had been planning for Alameda and when it\nis expected to start. He brought up that AC Transit's plan was dependent on Alameda\nmanaging and charging for parking at the ferry terminals as an incentive to take the bus.\nVice-Chair Nachtigall stated that with equity in mind getting the word out about these\nservices would be critical.\nDirector Thomas agreed.\nBoard Member Rothenberg wanted to know if the climate action elements had been\nincorporated and if Residential Parking Permits had been addressed and discussed.\nDirector Thomas said they did acknowledge the progress on the green initiatives and the\nGeneral Plan would keep pushing on what else they can do to deal with Climate Change\nand Greenhouse Gas Emissions. For parking management, the General Plan did not talk\na lot about the city's existing Residential Permit Parking Program, which is available for\nevery neighborhood in Alameda. There was a discussion about parking controls in areas\naround public transportation.\nBoard Member Teresa Ruiz wanted to elaborate on the connectivity aspects of the mobility\nelements. She wanted to see more specifics (bike/scooter/rideshare) folded into the smart\nstreet planning in terms of storage and parking for those elements. She also wanted to\nsee specific elements for safety (no right turn on red or cyclist specific traffic lights) to see\nif they were appropriate or could be adapted for Alameda. She also gave some ideas on\nApproved PB & TC Joint Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 11\nMay 10, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-05-10.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2021-07-28", "page": 2, "text": " ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5037417&GUID=C108F591-B9D7-\n4FAF-9DF2-2CC39C5426ED&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Weitze moved to approve as is and Vice-Chair Nachtigall seconded. A vote was\ntaken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 5-0 with Commissioner Hans abstained since he\nhad been absent.\n5B. Approve Meeting Minutes - May 26, 2021 (Action Item)\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5037418&GUID=E1EF96FE-5C3C-\n4C78-BEF2-DA7C32B4F47D&FullText=1.\nCommissioner Kohlstrand moved to approve the minutes as is and Vice-Chair Nachtigall\nseconded. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the motion passed 6-0.\n6. Regular Agenda Items\n6A. Elect Chair and Vice-Chair of the Transportation Commission (Action Item)\nThe staff report can be found at\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5037419&GUID=EFD295E3-0188-\n4D90-820E-A52EB8BC601D&Options=&Search=\nPublic Comments for #6A\nThere were no public speakers.\nChair Samantha Soules opened the floor for nominations.\nVice-Chair Nachtigall nominated Chair Soules as Chair for the next term and Commissioner\nWeitze seconded the motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the nomination passed 6-0.\nChair Soules thanked everyone for their confidence in her leadership.\nChair Soules nominated Commissioner Yuen for Vice-Chair, she had discussed this with her\nbefore the meeting and could confirm her interest in the role. Commissioner Rentschler seconded\nthe motion. A vote was taken by a raise of hands and the nomination passed 6-0.\n6E. Discuss Citywide Roundabout Analysis Results (Discussion Item)\nTC Meeting Minutes\n2\nJuly 28, 2021", "path": "TransportationCommission/2021-07-28.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2017-11-14", "page": 5, "text": "\"EXHIBIT A\"\nSouth Golf Course Schedule Analysis - Joseph Van Winkle\nNovember 13,2017\nNovember 2014\nClosed 9 holes and began import of required soil\nJuly 2015\nClosed remaining 9 holes\nApril 2018\n32 months or 2 years and 8 months (assume opening in May)\nIncludes soil import and construction and grow-in period.\nHow long should it take?\n\"Planning and design is mostly done within one year; the construction work typically takes 2-2.5\nyears, depending on the topography of the site, the quality of soil, the availability of water, the\nclimatic conditions and of course the expected quality, complexity or playing difficulty of the\ndesigned golf course.\" 17% of courses in the study took 2-3 years for construction phase.\nSource: KPMG tp://static.golfbenchmark.com/media/2/9/3/9/2939.pd\n1. \"Quality of Soil\" - heavy clay, salt build up, zero drainage, still underwater after 4 year\ndrought. Required significant soil critical to raise grade for optimum drainage. Soil also\nprovided a protective cap over the old \"dump site.'\n2. \"Climatic Conditions\" of unprecedented rains Sept. 2016 - April 2017; highest rain in\n100 years; Train of \"Pineapple Express\" storms; an \"Atmospheric River\"\n3. High Quality Scope:\na. Drainage and Water Management - 6 Bio-swales capture and \"clean\" the water\nwith native wetland plantings, mile of canals restored and replanted resulting in\nabundant aquatic life; 3 lakes rebuilt with 70% increased capacity,\nb. Native grasses and shrubs (e.g. Buck Wheat-grown by UC Berkeley Nursery)\noften required long lead times.\nc.\n8-12\" Sand Cap - provides better root structure and drainage to allow carts on\nsooner without 90 degree rule, but doubles the amount of effort. Soil has to be\npositioned, moved by dozer, shaped/sculpted and then raked by hand and the\nd. Quality hardscape - stone bridges, 10' wide cart paths with 12\" recycled road\nbase, rock work to limit erosion into canals, stone pavers at restrooms, etc.\ne. Precision Irrigation - 5000 irrigation heads (3x North course) enabled by satellite\ngeo-mapping and computer control via wired controllers and sensors\nf.\n5 tees per hole allow range of player experience\ng. Quality for visuals and maintenance with 7 types of grass and 100+ lined bunkers\n4. Bird Delay - giving hawk fledglings time to mature in their nests delayed work on holes\n5. Neglected. 1970s was the last rebuild. Asbestos pipes and more than 40 years of decay.\nChange orders may have added to schedule, but Greenway has absorbed the costs.\nBy comparison, Palo Alto is also opening a rebuilt course in Spring 2018. Baylands Golf Course\nwill have cost the City of Palo Alto over $13m in design and construction.", "path": "GolfCommission/2017-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2017-11-14", "page": 6, "text": "\"EXHIBIT B\"\nInformational Report on Corica Park Founding Membership Program\nTo: Honorable Chair and Members of the Golf Commission\nFrom: Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director\nRe: Informational Report on Corica Park Founding Membership Program\nBACKGROUND\nGreenway Golf previously reported to the Golf Commission on the development of a Founding\nMembership Program. Greenway is working toward implementing this program and this agenda\nitem is an opportunity for the Golf Commission to receive detailed information and ask\nquestions.\nDISCUSSION\nThe table below outlines the details of the Founding Membership Program.\nOFFER\nExclusive\n20 Members\nTerm\n5 Years from opening of the South Course\nOne Time Cost\n$15,000\nUnlimited Access to Golf Facilities.\n-\nTwo 18 hole courses\n-\nPar 3 course\n-\nShort Game Practice Area\n-\nPractice Range\n-\nPreferred $10 Cart Fees apply\n-\nWill receive Founding Member Bronze Bag Tag\n14 Day advance booking window for tee times\nFamily Access (spouse and children under age 25 included)\n-\n3 Complimentary Accompanied Preferred Guests per Quarter.\n-\nGuest pass valid for play after 11am Monday-Thursday. Guests must be accompanied by the\nmember.\n-\nGuests required to pay a cart fee.\n-\n20% off regular golf rates for accompanied guests at all other times.\n-\nWeekend play before 12pm on the South Course is limited to Primary Member.\nHolidays Excluded (e.g. Christmas, day after Thanksgiving)\nInvitations to Member Events - social / golf / wine tasting / other\n20% off Pro Shop Apparel (excludes hard good / non-sale items)\nBonus: South Course Advance Preview Play - Valid for Member and one accompanied guest to play", "path": "GolfCommission/2017-11-14.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-25", "page": 18, "text": "\"Help is on the way\"\nBridgeGroup LLC\nManagement Cnsultants\nWhy do we want to do it?\nIdentify WHY it is important for the Mayor and Council to consider action on projects or\npolicy initiatives. Please note the list below on DEFINING the Why WE Want to Do IT\nHow will we do it?\nBased on Mayor and Council discussion at the Workshop the staff will develop future\nagenda item for their action.\nHow do we make sure it works?\nDetermine if the agenda item has a current performance measure, requires a new\nperformance measure or no performance measure.\nDEFINING the Why WE Want to Do IT\nTo Improve:\nOperational Performance\nPolicies\nProcedure\nPrograms\nRacial Justice\nEquity\nFinances\nRisk Management\nTechnology\nCustomer Service\nSustainability\nCommunity Well Being\nInfrastructure\nOther\n16\nI P a g e", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-25", "page": 17, "text": "\"Help is on the way\"\nBridgeGroup LLC\nManagement Consultants\nConsultant Recommendations: Consider adding specific timelines for completing the\nproject/policy identified in the work plan. Determining specific timelines for each project will\nallow the Mayor and Council and staff to prioritize what projects/policies can be completed in a\nspecific fiscal year and which need to be moved to subsequent years.\nThis is the section of the Workshop where any ideas the Mayor and Council want to consider\nfor future projects/policies from the information presented on healthy community model,\ncitizen engagement and the Governance Relations System (GRS). Also potential policies and\nprojects identified in the confidential Mayor and Council Workshop survey and from the\nDecember, 2019 Workshop (Note: Projects listed in Blue) will be discussed in this section. The\nfacilitator will guide the Mayor and Council through this Workshop section using the Start With\nWhy format. Staff will record the results of the discussion on a screen that can be viewed\nduring the meetings by the participants.\nStart With WHY Obridgegroupllc\nThe Mayor and Council Workshop will focus on creating dialogue and discussion opportunities\nbetween council members and staff. The format that will be used to facilitate this dialogue will\nbe based on an approach developed by Simon Sinek in the book Start With Why: How Great\nLeaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action. By Starting with \"WHY\" the Mayor and Council and\nstaff can quickly evaluate the proposed projects and policy discussed at the Workshop by using\na FOUR Questions approach:\n1. What do we want to do? (Mayor and Council)\n2. Why do we want to do it? (Mayor and Council/Staff)\n3. How will we do it? (Staff- Tactical determined after Workshop))\n4. How do we make sure it works? (Mayor and Council/Staff- Performance Measurement)\nWhat do we want to do?\nDiscuss and Identify specific projects or policy initiatives for FY 2021\n15 I P a g e", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-25", "page": 12, "text": "\"Help is on the way\"\nBridgeGroup LLC\nManagement Consultants\nExpectation\nDescription\nFoster teamwork and high\nGuide people as a team toward common objectives;\nperforming organizational\nselect qualified and highly competent members of the\ncharacteristics.\nLeadership Team to implement through the\norganization.\nRecognize citizens are our\nThe Council expects that the public will be treated\ncustomers\nequitably, with dignity and respect. Assist the Council by\nresolving problems at administrative levels and not\nthrough City Council action. Value community\nperceptions and understand that customer satisfaction is\nimportant.\nAgenda material\nStaff will provide concise, accurate and meaningful\nagenda material for the Council's review to include the\ntimely delivery of written/electronic materials.\nValue intergovernmental relations\nEffectively represent the City's interests when dealing\nwith other agencies. Participate and cooperate in\nintergovernmental activities to have an impact on the\nregion.\nCommunicate effectively\nProvide information to the public in a timely fashion on\nmatters, which will cause public reaction. Be candid and\nforthright in discussing City business matters with the\nCouncil through various methods that include one on\none meetings with Council members. Be accessible to\nCouncil members.\nProactive Management Style\nShow initiative and creativity in dealing with issues,\nproblems and unusual situations while remaining open\nto new ideas and suggestions for change. Be adaptive to\nthe changing expectations of local government and the\nimpacts of state and national conditions.\nEffective Leadership\nBe enthusiastic. Command respect and performance\nfrom the Leadership Team while providing the tools\nnecessary for effective service delivery. Support a\npositive work culture at all times.\nNegotiate Effectively\nIn conjunction with the Legal Staff (when appropriate),\nalways consider City Residents when determining\nnegotiating positions or reaching agreement.\nNo Operational Surprises\nStaff will keep the City Council informed on all critical\noperational issues.\n10 I P a g e", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-25", "page": 15, "text": "\"Help is on the way\"\nBridgeGroup LLC\nManagement Consultants\nFIGURE 1: Strategic Policy Development System.\nSTEP 1\nIssue\nSTEP 5\nSTEP 2\nReview and Adjust,\nDetermine\nIf necessary\nPolicy Model\nSTEP 4\nSTEP 3\nDetermine Metrics\nDevelop\nfor Success\nPolicy\nSource: Mike Letcher\nFIGURE 2: Policy Models.\nOpportunity\nCompass\nBest Practice\nPolitically\nCore\nBusiness/Staft\nSource: Mike Letcher\nFigure 1 illustrates the process for using the policy models. The process is designed to evaluate\nthe policy or issue the Mayor and Council are considering\nFigure 2 shows policy models that can be a key guidepost to strategic policy development. The\npolicy models and subsequent definitions are not meant to be all-inclusive. The concepts or\nmodels can be adapted to meet the unique needs of the governing body and staff.\nComponents of the strategic policy development system can be changed and policy models\naltered to fit your particular needs. In my experience working with governing bodies for more\nthan 30 years, these models represent the key components or drivers that create the push for\npublic-policy formulation.\nCompass approach. Policy development is based on community values, approved plan, or\nstrategic approach.\nBest-practice approach. Policy is based on best-practice principles.\nOpportunity approach. Policy development is based on significant community and/or\norganizational benefit.\n13 I P a g e", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-25", "page": 20, "text": "\"Help is on the way\"\nBridgeGroup LLC\nManagement Consultants\nFocus Area: Preparing Alameda for the Future\nProject/Policy\nTo Improve\nSenge\nDepartment Lead\nRating\nClimate Change\nImplement CARP, check ins, staffing\n2\nAssistant City Manager\nposition, check box on reports\nLong-term\nBalanced approach to finances,\n2\nFinance\nfinancial\nmaximize resources, connect to\nstrategies\noutside assistance,\nTraffic Vision\nZero\nFocus Area: Encouraging Economic Development across the Island\nProject/Policy\nTo Improve\nSenge\nDepartment Lead\nRating\nWork/Live Space\nConsider adjustment after election,\n3\nPlanning, Building,\nbroader housing discussion overall\nTransportation\nNew ferry\nterminal at\nSeaplane Lagoon\nDevelopment at\nBig picture, establish goals (falls\n2\nCommunity Development\nAlameda Point\nunder multiple objectives: livability,\nReview Base\neconomic development, preparing for\nReuse/Property\nfuture), hold a work session\nManagement\nMaintain\nMore support to districts/smal\n1\nCMO - COVID Town Hall\nactive\nbusinesses, COVID messaging -\nbusiness\nbusiness owners lead, street closures,\ndistricts\nnear and long term goals,\ncommunicate plans\nCapitalizing\nBroadband, digital divide (WiFi and\n2\nIT\non Working\nequipment), child care\nARPD/CD - Child care\nfrom Home\n18 I Page", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-25", "page": 5, "text": "\"Help is on the way\"\nBridgeGroup LLC\nManagement Consultants\nMayor and Council Workshop Overview\nDevelopment of the Mayor and Council Workshop Agenda was a collaborative process with the\nMayor and Council, City Manager, and BridgeGroup. A confidential online survey was sent to\nthe Mayor and each Council Member to get their input on the following Workshop Agenda:\nReview and Discuss Alignment and Foundations for High Performing Councils\nReview a Systems Approach to Planning COVID-19 Recovery\nReview Innovations for Citizen Engagement\nReview and Discuss Tools for Supporting Mayor and Council Effectiveness\nDetermine What Tools to Develop Further for Future Use\nDevelop Project and Policy Priorities for FY 2021\nDiscuss and Determine if Alignment Operating Policy is Needed\nThe Mayor and Council Workshop was held on Saturday, July 25 2020 at the Alameda Main\nLibrary. The following were in attendance at the Workshop:\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft\nVice Mayor John Knox White\nCouncilmember Tony Daysog\nCouncilmember Jim Oddie\nCouncilmember Malia Vella\nCity Manager Eric Levitt\nCity Clerk Lara Weisiger\nCity Attorney Yibin Shen\nPresident/CEO BridgeGroup LLC Mike Letcher\nThis report provides a summary of the Workshop and some recommendations from the\nconsultant.\n3 I Page", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-25", "page": 16, "text": "\"Help is on the way\"\nBridgeGroup LLC\nManagement Consultants\nPolitically based approach. Policy is based on narrow intent from special-interest groups or\nconstituents. I would replace this Approach with one titled: Fiscal Sustainability approach\nPolicy developed takes into account city's ability to fund its operations long term\nCore business/staff-recommended approach. Policy is based on the requirement to run\ngovernment's core business functions and is recommended by staff to improve services,\ninternal operations, and policies.\nIn terms of policy models, more is better. Try out the model and see how it works. Groundwork\nhas to be done for strategic policy development to work. A number of critical issues also have\nto be considered:\nTime required, the more the better. Thinking ahead and developing an annual work\nplan is important to provide the time to fully evaluate important policies that the\ngoverning board will consider.\nStaff capacities to effectively implement the policy. Are there enough worker bees to\nget the job done? This needs to be fully evaluated by the governing board and staff\nbefore time is spent developing the policy.\nCommittee referral before consideration. This is a no-brainer. It always helps to have a\ncommittee recommendation.\nCommunication of need and outcomes. Unfortunately, the clear and concise\ncommunication of the need for the policy is often overlooked. Get the sound bites\ndetermined before the policy-formulation process starts.\nNO EASY ANSWERS\nAn approach and model for strategic policy development is needed. The approach described in\nthis article is based on experience and what I have seen work and not work behind the curtain\nof policy formulation. Managers know there are no easy answers or solutions to policy\ndevelopment. But like all journeys, it begins with one step and the compass, map, or GPS to get\nyou to the destination.\nDevelop Project and Policy Priorities for FY 2021\nWorkshop Summary: The Mayor and Council had extensive discussions on the work\npriorities from the December 2019 Workshop and new potential projects/policies identified in\nthe survey. Council expressed concerns about staff's workload and ability to complete all of the\nproject/policy priorities.\n14 I Page", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-25", "page": 7, "text": "\"Help is on the way\"\nBridgeGroup LLC\nManagement Consultants\nReview Innovations for Citizen Engagement\nWorkshop Summary: The Mayor and Council discussed having standards for Boards and\nCommissions, periodic updates at Council meetings, promoting diversity in membership,\nhaving them do studies on issues to advise the Mayor and Council and considering a Marana,\nArizona Model to consolidate some Board and Commissions.\nConsultant Recommendations: Consider implementing the Marana Citizens Forum and\nthe other ideas discussed under the summary.\nCitizen Engagement is essential to creating a thriving community. The following are tools used\nby City's to engage their citizens:\nMARANA\nAZ\nittps://icma.org/success-stories/new-approach-energizes-citizens-\nin-marana-arizona\nMRSC\nLocal Government Success  http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Governance/Citizen-\nParticipation-and-Engagement/Communication-and-Citizen-Participation-Techniques.aspx\nclick here to sign up, get involved and\nhttps://www.speakupaustin.org/\nA\nsset\nB\nased\nommunity\nevelopment\nhttps://www.nurturedevelopment.org/asset-based-community\ndevelopment/\n5 I Page", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-25", "page": 6, "text": "\"Help is on the way\"\nBridgeGroup LLC\nManagement Consultants\nReview a Systems Approach to Planning COVID-19 Recovery\nWorkshop Summary: The Mayor and Council liked the Healthy Community model and\ndiscussed how it might be used in COVID-19 recovery and linked to the budget and their\npriorities.\nConsultant Recommendations: Consider linking the Health Community Model to the\nMayor and Council agenda development process.\nRecovery from COVID-19 for communities will be a complicated. What can Alameda potentially\nuse to guide the city through its COVID -19 recovery efforts? The Arizona Town Hall will be\nusing the Elements of Health Community Model to work with communities over the next year\non building plans for COVID-19 recovery. The model was developed by the Vitalyst Health\nFoundation http://vitalysthealth.org/ in Arizona. The Arizona Town Hall will use the model as a\nchecklist for communities to take a more comprehensive approach to COVID-19 recovery.\nTRANSPORTATION\nACCESS\nSTA\nOPTIONS\nTO CARE\nSOCIAL\nHEALTH\nAFFORDABLE QUALITY\nJUSTICE\nHOUSING\nHALE\nRESILIENCY\nSOCIAL/CULTURA\nELEMENTS OF A\nCOMMUNITY\nCOHESION\nSAFETY\nHEALTHY\nCOMMUNITY\nPARKS AND\nECONOMIC\nRECREATION\nOPPORTUNITY\nCOMMUNITY\nEDUCATIONAL\nDESIGN\nOPPORTUNITY\nFOOD\nENVIRONMENTAL\nACCESS\nQUALITY\nThe following link provides more information on the Healthy Community model.\n https://www.dropbox.com/s/1h43alxerfmhfx5/Healthy-Communities-and-social-determinants-\nfinal.pdf?dl=0 During the workshop the Mayor and Council can discuss if this model may or may\nnot be useful to use as a guide for the city as it recovers from COVID-19.\n4 I Page", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-25", "page": 8, "text": "\"Help is on the way\"\nBridgeGroup LLC\nManagement Consultants\nReview and Discuss Tools for Supporting Mayor and Council Effectiveness\nWorkshop Summary: The Mayor and Council discussed each component of the Governance\nRelations System (GRS) and how it may help them work more effectively with each other and\nthe City Manager.\nConsultant Recommendations: Consider hiring a consultant to assist the Mayor and\nCouncil and City Manager in developing the (GRS).\nThis section of the workshop will introduce two\ntools for improving Mayor and Council\neffectiveness. The Governance Relations\n\"Governing boards have been known in one\nSystem (GRS) is designed to provide a system\nform or another for centuries. Yet throughout\nfor establishing expectations for the Mayor\nthose many years there has been a baffling\nand Council and City Manager. GRS will be\nfailure to develop a coherent or universally\napplicable understanding of just what a board\nintroduced using an example from the City of\nis for.\"\nGoodyear, Arizona. If it's determined at the\nWorkshop that the GRS would be beneficial to\nCarver's Policy Governance Model in\nthe City, the Mayor and Council can develop it\nNonprofit Organizations\nat a future Workshop. The second tool, The\nPolicy Model can be discussed and developed\nat the Workshop if it has value for the City to use in the future.\nGovernance Relations System (Example Only) Obridgegroupllc\nThe role of a Governing Board is often difficult to define. It is this lack of clarity within the roles\nof the Governing Board that results in a disconnect between the Governing Board and the Chief\nExecutive. Ideally, the role of an elected Public Board is to set policy. The implementation of\nthat policy and responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the organization reside with the\nChief Executive or City Manager. What's missing?\nThe answer is: established expectations that the Board has for the Executive or Manager. The\nGovernance Relations System (GRS) is designed to create a bridge between the Elected Board's\nexpectations of their Chief Executive (City Manager) and the execution of the day-to-day\n6 I P a g e", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-25", "page": 19, "text": "\"Help is on the way\"\nBridgeGroup LLC\nManagement Consultants\nSenge Chart\nThe Senge Chart is an excellent tool the rate the impact of the proposed policy or project and\ngauge its difficulty to accomplish. The goal is to focus on projects or policies that are rated 1 or\n2.\nPROJECT IS EASY TO\nPROJECT IS DIFFICULT\nACCOMPLISH\nTO ACCOMPLISH\nHIGH IMPACT ON City\n1\n2\nLOW IMPACT ON City\n3\n4\nFocus Area Charts\nThe Focus Area Charts will be used during the Workshop to develop project and policy\ninitiatives for FY 2021. The Charts will be built on the Focus Areas developed in the Mayor and\nCouncil December, 2019 Workshop. The Charts will include the following:\nFocus Areas- The strategic priorities for the City\nProject/Policy- The proposed project or policy\nTo Improve- Reference To Improve list of areas the policy or project will improve\nSenge Chart Rating- Rating assigned during facilitation to the policy or project.\n17 I P a g e", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-25", "page": 22, "text": "\"Help is on the way\"\nBridgeGroup LLC\nManagement Consultants\nStrategic Operating Policy\nWorkshop Summary: The Mayor and Council discussed how the Strategic Operating Policy\nwould work and its benefits for Alameda.\nConsultant Recommendations: The Strategic Operating Policy should be considered for\nadoption by the Mayor and Council after any changes recommended by staff.\nHow can a Strategic Operating Policy help the City of Alameda focus? Implementing key city\npriorities takes discipline and collaboration between the Mayor and City Council, City Manager\nand Staff.\nThe City of Alameda will use its annual Priorities and Work Plan to:\n1. Develop the operating budget.\n2. Consider projects from the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP). General Plan,\nEconomic Development Plan and other approved Mayor and Council plans\n3. Develop new projects and assign them to specific departments for execution.\nWhat specific steps will Alameda take every year to focus its strategic efforts?\n1. The Priorities and Work Plan will be updated annually during the budget process.\n2.\nMayor and City Council and City Manager are committed to making sure that staff has\nthe time and resources to complete the projects in the plan.\n3. If new project(s) are added to the work plan after it is approved during the fiscal year, the\nMayor and Council will work with the City Manager to determine what project(s) currently\nin the plan need to be reprioritized and moved to a future fiscal year.\nCITI Y OF\nTFRKA\n20 I P a g e", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-25", "page": 4, "text": "\"Help is on the way\"\nBridgeGroup LLC\nManagement Consultants\nTABLE OF CONTENTS Obridgegroupllo\nContent\nPage\nMayor and Council Workshop\n3-4\nSummary Overview\nReview a Systems Approach to\n4\nPlanning COVID-19 Recovery\nReview Innovations for Citizen\n5\nEngagement\nReview and Discuss Tools for\n6-14\nSupporting Mayor and Council\nEffectiveness\nDevelop Project and Policy Priorities\n14-19\nfor FY 2021\nStrategic Operating Policy\n20\nPLAN\nACT\nCONTINUOUS\nIMPROVEMENT\nDHO\nCHECK\n2 I P ag e", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-25", "page": 14, "text": "\"Help is on the way\"\nBridgeGroup LLC\nManagement Consultants\nThe Expectations of Customer Service/Civic Engagement\nExpectation\nDescription\nTimely responses\nStaff will strive to provide timely responses to\ncitizens that are easily understood.\nCivic engagement\nOpportunities to increase citizen engagement\nwith the City on a social and formal basis will\nbe a priority.\nEducate citizens on services\nStaff will continuously develop strategies and\nsystems to educate citizens on the services\nand processes of local government.\nAccurate information\nStaff will ensure information provided to\ncitizens is accurate and written for clarity\nLinks\nCarver Policy Governance Model in Nonprofits: http://www.carvergovernance.com/pg-np.htm\nMike Letcher ICMA Public Management Magazine article on Caver Policy Governance Model:\nhttps://icma.org/sites/default/files/2818 Commentary%20-\n%20The%20Undiscovered%20Country%20-\n%20A%2ONew%20Path%20for%20Local%20Government%20Management.pd\nPolicy Model\u00a9bridgegroupllc\nThe following is the link to the complete article on the Policy Model\nhttps://www.dropbox.com/s/fehk8nggdn73icf/Policy%20Model%20Article.pdf?dl=0.Themodel\nwill be discussed at the Workshop for its applicability to Alameda. The specific content or\nwording in the model can be adjusted to requirements of the City.\nWorkshop Summary: The Mayor and Council liked the Policy Model and discussed ways to\nlink it to the agenda development process.\nConsultant Recommendations: The Policy Model should be considered for adoption by\nthe Mayor and Council after any changes recommended by staff.\n12 I Page", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-25", "page": 13, "text": "\"Help is on the way\"\nBridgeGroup LLC\nManagement Consultants\nThe Expectations of the Governing Board\nExpectation\nDescription\nValue members' opinions.\nYou can disagree with each other but provide the space for\neach member of the City Council to express their opinion.\nDo your homework.\nBefore the meeting, read information sent by staff to be\ninformed and prepared for discussion. If a meeting is\nmissed, become informed of the decisions made or the\ninformation shared.\nNo surprises at meeting for staff.\nIf possible, contact staff prior to the meeting when you\nhave a critical question that requires research.\nDisagree with the vote, but do\nYou can disagree with a vote and express your viewpoint\nnot undermine the will of the\non why you did not support an item but understand that\nCouncil.\nthe Council has voted for the item and you are\nresponsible, as a Council Member, for its successful\nimplementation.\nPractice civility.\nAs the elected representatives we will strive to be a model\nfor our community and the region on how an elected body\nshould work together for the public good.\nSupport the strategic plan.\nCity Council Members will support and require a Strategic\nPlan for the City.\nNo public criticism of staff at\nNo Council Member will criticize City staff at a public\nmeetings.\nmeeting. They can discuss their concerns with the City\nManager privately.\nNo operational interference.\nCity Council Members will not direct the work of staff. If\nthey have issues or questions related to operations, they\nwill be directed to the City Manager or Designee.\nFocus on outcomes not positions.\nBefore taking a position review the outcomes, potential\nbenefits/results and relationship to the Strategic Plan of a\npolicy or issue first.\n11\nI P a g e", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-25", "page": 10, "text": "\"Help is on the way\"\nBridgeGroup LLC\nManagement Consultants\nThe Expectations of the Organization\nExpectation\nDescription\nMaintain an Integrated Strategic\nThe integrated strategic management system will allow\nPlanning System that is linked to\nfor strategic projects that require funding to be\nthe annual budget, strategic\nconsidered during the annual budget process. Current\nprojects, employee evaluations\nand new strategic projects and performance measures\nand performance measures.\nwill also be reviewed and approved at this time.\nStrive to be an \"open book\"\n\"Open Book\" means that all critical, not confidential,\norganization for its employees.\noperational and financial information concerning the City\nwill be shared and available to employees.\nExecutive Team is committed to\nEmployee development and involvement is a high priority\nthe developing and empowering\nfor the Executive Team.\nemployees.\nContinuously improve technology\nContinuous technology improvements are essential for\nfor internal and external services.\nthe City to meet and exceed the expectations of its\ncustomers.\nStrive to be a regional model for\nCommitment for the City Council and City Manager to\nBoard Governance.\nwork collaboratively on continuously improving their\nGovernance Relations.\nContinuously improve internal\nContinuous internal process improvement is essential for\nprocesses and procedures.\nefficiency and effectiveness of the City.\nBe good stewards of the public's\nEnsure processes, procedures and practices are in place\nmoney and trust.\nto meet this commitment\nFocus on developing a learning\nCommitment to provide training for employees to ensure\norganization.\nthat the City continues to have talented and well-trained\nemployees providing leadership and operational response\nreadiness.\nRecognize internal stakeholders\nInternal stakeholders should be treated equitably and\nare customers too\nwith respect, as these stakeholder's service timelines\noften are dependent upon the work of internal service\nproviders.\nInnovation\nEmployees are empowered to consider unique options\nalong with industry inspired alternatives to solving\nproblems and enhancing service delivery\nTransparency\nCitizens will have access to key financial and operational\ninformation.\n8 I Page", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-25", "page": 11, "text": "\"Help is on the way\"\nBridgeGroup LLC\nManagement Consultants\nThe Performance Expectations of the City Manager\nExpectation\nDescription\nImplementing strategic plan\nAnnual evaluation will include progress on these\nprojects.\nprojects.\nAssist the City Council with their\nEnsure that information is detailed, reliable and\npolicy- making role.\nexplained in a thorough manner. Include alternatives\nand recommendations.\nAny written information provided\nInformation shared with one City Council Member must\nto one City Council Member will be\nbe sent to all members.\nprovided to all members.\nPlan ahead, anticipate needs and\nSeek input to ensure future plans are achievable and\nrecognize potential problems.\nproactively communicate possible shortcomings to\nEnsuring attention to detail to\ncollaborate with the Board when necessary.\navoid error or things \"slipping\nthrough the cracks\".\nImplement City Council's policy\nEnsures that key information is shared with the Council\nregarding expenditures through the\nand that the Council's intent is followed.\nuse of standard financial\nmanagement procedures.\nBudget recommendations will\nEnsures that the City Council understands the basis for\nprovide rationale and alternatives\nbudget requests and how decisions were made in the\nfor Council consideration. Projects\nfinal recommendations.\nwill be integrated into the budget\nusing the strategic plan.\nRespect the decisions of the City\nImplement Council's policies by accurately interpreting\nCouncil.\ndirection given by the Council, carrying out their\ndirectives as a whole and supporting the actions of the\nCouncil after a decision has been made.\nPractice \"collaborative leadership\".\nStrive to ensure that your leadership is inclusive and not\nexclusive. Involve citizens, employees and other\nstakeholders and partners where appropriate.\nEnsure positive and supportive\nCreate and foster an environment that values employees\nphysical and emotional working\nand their contributions. Support an environment that\nconditions\nassists employees in being successful in the positions\nthat they hold. Ensure that personnel policies and\npractices are administered in an equitable manner.\n9 I P a g e", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-25", "page": 9, "text": "\"Help is on the way\"\nBridgeGroup LLC\nManagement Consultants\noperations of the organization. The GRS also sets expectations for the Board to support the\nsuccess of the Chief Executive.\nThe GRS includes FOUR areas:\n1. Expectations of the Organization\n2. Performance Expectation of the Chief Executive\n3. Expectations of the Elected Board\n4. Expectations of Customer Service/Civic Engagement\n5. Expectations for Role of the Mayor (This section could be added to Alameda)\nThese areas provide general guidelines for how the organization will be managed, the expected\nconduct of the Board, the manner in which services will be provided and opportunities for\nengagement with citizens. The key to making the GRS work is the partnership/collaboration\nbetween the Elected Board and Chief Executive to set clear expectations on how the\norganization will operate. The GRS can be viewed as a series of interconnected gears that drive\nthe organization and its management and leadership priorities.\nThe GRS is designed to improve the relationship between the Governing Board and Chief\nExecutive and their collective effectiveness. The expectations set benchmarks for annually\nevaluating the efforts of the Board and the Chief Executive. The expectations can be amended\nand adjusted over time to keep them relevant to the municipality. The bar is set high with these\nexpectations, but the journey in the search for governance excellence is never easy. Each step\nforward or times when these expectations are not met, are all part of trying to be the best\ngoverned municipality for the organization's citizens and employees.\n7 I P age", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-06-25", "page": 3, "text": "\"Hydrology and Water Quality: contaminated storm water runoffs can\nhave a potentially significant impact due to the potential for petroleum\nproduct spills and other debris. The applicant is to prepare and implement\na Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.\n\"Fact: To date there has been no formal study of air quality regarding\nasbestos, carbon monoxide and gas emissions along the Otis Drive\ncorridor, as well as soil erosion with stormwater runoffs impacting water\nquality, particularly that of the lagoon opposite of the proposed fuel\nstation. (The lagoon opposite of the Towne Center is already 400% over\nthe upper limit for expected fecal coliform.)\n\"Fact: There was critical facilities (two respite care homes and a hospital)\nthat will be affected by environmental conditions involving air and water\nquality.\n\"Fact: Alameda is approaching the tipping point of endangering its natural\nand healthy environment at its south shore for trying to recoup revenue\nleakages.\n\"Is this best planning practice for a town in such a fragile environment?'\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n8-A. Use Permit UP07-0010; Minor Design Review MDR 07-0058; Parking In-lieu\nFees - Applicant: Gary Parker - 2437 Lincoln (ZS). The applicant is\nrequesting a Use Permit and Design Review approval to establish a dental office\nand laboratory on the ground floor of an existing building; reconfigure the parking\nlot to increase the number of parking spaces from seven to thirteen; and pay\nparking in-lieu fees for five parking spaces. The property is located within a C-C-\nT (Community Commercial Theater Combining) zoning district.\nBoard member Cunningham moved to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB-07-23 to\napprove a Use Permit and Design Review approval to establish a dental office and\nlaboratory on the ground floor of an existing building; reconfigure the parking lot to\nincrease the number of parking spaces from seven to thirteen; and pay parking in-lieu\nfees for five parking spaces.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6\nAbsent: 1 (Mariani). The motion passed.\nPage 3 of 13", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-09-11", "page": 3, "text": "\"President Lynch noted that the noticing practices were regulated by the State, and that the City may\nwant to consider extending often extended the noticing parameters.\" He suggested that he leave his\ncontact information with City staff to be including in the noticing. He recommended that he bring the\nvideotapes to City staff as well.\n7.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\n7-A.\nApplicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow five\nnew buildings totaling approximately 100,795 square feet in floor area with a total of\n268 parking spaces to be constructed on a 7.7 acre site (CL). The site is located at 1900 -\n1980 North Loop Road within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial\nManufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District. Applicant: SRM Associates (FDP06-\n0003 and DR06-0071).\nM/S Kohlstrand/Member McNamara and unanimous to continue Item 7-A to September 25, 2006.\nAYES - 5 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n7-B.\nApplicant requests a Final Development Plan and Major Design Review to allow a one-\nstory building of approximately 36,899 square feet in floor area with 69 parking spaces\nto be constructed on a 4.1 acre site (CL). The site is located at 2275 Harbor Bay Parkway\nwithin the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturing, Planned\nDevelopment Zoning District. Applicant: Harbor Bay Acquisition LLC (FDP06-0002 and\nDR06-0062)\nM/S Kohlstrand/Member McNamara and unanimous to continue Item 7-B to September 25, 2006.\nAYES - 5 (Cook, Mariani absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\n7-C.\nDR06-0027 and V06-0006 - Applicant: Fargo Farnesi Inc. - 2427 Clement Ave. (DG).\nThe applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new two-story commercial\ncabinet shop with a penthouse apartment on the third floor, to be used as a caretaker's unit,\nand a free-standing single-story wood frame structure to be used as an administrative office\nfor the cabinet shop. The project will provide four full-size parking spaces and one ADA\ncompliant parking space. The applicant proposes to pay parking in lieu fees pursuant to\nAlameda Municipal Code Section 30-7.13 for any additional spaces that may be required by\nthe City. The applicant is also applying for a Variance to the City onsite vehicle backup\ndistance and minimum driveway and parking area perimeter landscaping requirements. The\nsite is located at 2427 Clement Ave. within an M-2, General Industrial, (Manufacturing)\nDistrict. (Applicant requests continuance to the meeting of September 25, 2006.)\nM/S Kohlstrand/Member McNamara and unanimous to continue Item 7-C to September 25, 2006.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 3\nSeptember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-09-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2008-06-12", "page": 2, "text": "\"That ARPD staff write a letter to the Police Department and ask for assistance in\nthe parks on the weekends. The Commission would like to have APD check permits\nand make sure there is no alcohol is being consumed in the parks.\"\n4.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\n5.\nNEW BUSINESS\nA.\nReview and Discussion of Lincoln Park Field Renovation Plans - (Information\nItem)\nPM McDonald reviewed with the Commission the Lincoln Park Field Renovation Plans.\nThe plans call for new irrigation, new turf, and the ball field will remain in the same location,\ndirt area will be leveled where another field used to be in the southeast corner, and some\nregrading will be done.\nCommissioner Restagno asked if there will be a grass infield. PM McDonald stated there is\nan alternate bid for a grass infield. Having a grass infield may be a good idea because the\ninfield mix is getting very expensive and it needs to be trucked in, etc. Also some of the\nhomes are very close to the field, and as much as everyone tries to water the field the dust\nstill ends up on the homes. It would not eliminate all the dirt problems, but would help\nalleviate the dust problem.\nCommissioner Cooper asked how the field is used. PM McDonald stated that it is strictly\nused for hardball play. The only issue is if there are enough funds to do a grass infield.\nCommissioner Kahuanui asked how the project will be funded. PM McDonald stated that\nfunds for the project will come from the General Fund.\nCommissioner Sonneman asked for clarification regarding the Rittler Park renovation being\nput on hold. PM McDonald stated that the Rittler Park Field Renovation was recently put\nout to bid and is scheduled to begin on July 7, 2008.\nCommissioner Cooper stated that he thought the City was going to start the Harrison\nCenter first. PM McDonald stated that the building renovation was postponed at a Council\nMeeting and Council moved the field renovation up.\nPM McDonald also stated that the City has received notice from EBMUD about water\nrationing and it is impossible to keep up a new turf with the specs which require watering\nevery day. PM McDonald is recommending to the Recreation & Park Commission and\nPublic Works Department that the Lincoln Park Field Renovation be postponed.\nM/S/C\nKAHUANUI/BROWN\n(approved)\n\"That Lincoln Park Field Renovation be postponed until after the drought and that\nRittler Field Renovation be done first.\"\nApproved (7):\nOgden, Restagno, Brown, Cooper, Kahuanui, Mariani, Sonneman\nB.\nDiscussion of Use of Chairs in the Washington Park Dog Park - (Discussion\nItem)\n- 2 -\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg\nMinutes - Thursday, June 12, 2008", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2008-06-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2005-02-10", "page": 4, "text": "\"That the per player fee be tabled until alternatives are reviewed. \"\nApproved (5):\nIngram, Kahuanui, Johnson, Oliver, Reeves\nM/S/C\nREEVES/KAHUANUI\n(Approved)\nThat the 2005 fee increases listed below is approved:\nBASKETBALL\nAdult\n$610.00 Resident Team Fee\n$660.00 Non-Resident Team Fee\nSOFTBALL\nAdult\n$620.00 Resident Team Fee\n$670.00 Non-Resident Team Fee\nFLAG FOOTBALL\nAdult\n$598.00 Resident Team Fee\n$615.00 Non-Resident Team Fee\nSWIM LESSONS\n$ 5.00 each 1/2 hr. lesson - Resident\n($50 for two-week session)\n$ 6.00 each 1/2 hr. Lesson - Non-Resident\n($60 for two-week session)\nSWIM TEAMS USE FEE\nHourly Rate:\n$5/hr./youth & adult\n(currently)\n$11/hr./youth\n(beginning January 2006)\n$12/hr./adult\n(beginning January 2006)\n$12/hr./youth\n(beginning January 2006)\n$13/hr. adult (beginning January 2006)\nTENNIS\nAdult Group Lessons\n$ 11/hour\nJunior Group Lessons\n$ 11/hour\nPrivate Lessons\n$ 42/hour\nYOUTH\nDay Camp\n$120/week - Hidden Cove\n$135/week - Trails End\n$ 60/week - Hidden Cove Extended Care\n$ 50/week - Trails End Extended Care\nPreschool\n$ 4/hour\nYOUTH SPORTS\nFall, Winter, Spring\n4\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\nMinutes\nThursday, February 10, 2005\nDedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2005-02-10.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2007-03-08", "page": 4, "text": "\"That the request from Alameda Girls Softball to install a storage container in Krusi\nPark be approved.\" (Storage container will go where an existing container exists at this\ntime. This is next to field number three down the first baseline.)\n7.\nREPORTS FROM RECREATION COMMISSION AND RECREATION AND PARK\nDIRECTOR\nA. Park Division\nSee March 6, 2007 Activity Report.\nB. Recreation Division\nSee March 6, 2007 Activity Report.\nC. Mastick Senior Center\nSee March 6, 2007 Activity Report.\nD. Other Reports and Announcments\n-\nStatus Report on Transportation Master Plan Committee (Commissioner\nJohnson)\nNo report at this time.\n8.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL\nCommissioner Johnson stated that she would like to recommend some improvements to\nthe small dog park in Washington Park. Recommendations are possibly planting a tree to\nprovide shade to patrons using the facility, possibly mowing along the fence to allow\nowners of dogs to exercise around the perimeter of the park while their dogs are using it,\nand fixing the ADA entrance into the small dog park and making it level.\nDirector Lillard suggested trying to procure donations to have an arbor put in, like the one in\nthe center of Mastick Senior Center. Manager McDonald stated that there are parachute\ntype shades that cover a good size picnic area that cost approximately $15,000.\nDirector Lillard stated that staff will look at the grading of the dirt at the entrance to the site.\n9.\nITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA\n10.\nSET DAY FOR NEXT MEETING\nApril 12, 2007\n11.\nADJOURNMENT\n- -4 -\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg\nMinutes - Thursday, March 8, 2007", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2007-03-08.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-04-25", "page": 7, "text": "\"The City of Alameda has put a great deal of effort into making pedestrian crossings as safe as\npossible. Do not take a step backwards!\n\"Although there are ramps located at the supercrosswalk at Otis, there are unrecognized ADA\nproblems with putting a bus at Lum School. The only reason to place a bus stop on Otis at\nWillow and Grand is to attract riders. There are no cross streets in this area. North of Otis are\none-block dead-end cul de sacs with low-density, single-family houses. South of Otis are four\nblocks of housing: two blocks of single family, and two blocks of medium-density apartments\nand condos. The bulk of the potential riders reside south of Otis. To get to Otis from the south,\nthere are two routes: One is Ivy Walk, which leads directly to Otis. The other is Snowberry Walk\nwhich leads you into the back of Lum School, then along a driveway through the Lum School\ngrounds to Sandcreek Way, approximately one block distance, then along Sandcreek Way for one\nblock to Otis.\n\"ADA Problem #1: When school is not in session, there is a chain attached with a padlock across\nthe driveway through Lum School. I can step over the chain, but a handicapped person cannot.\nYou will have to tell the principal at Lum School to stop using the chain. Whatever the reason the\nchain serves will be eliminated. I do not know, but I suspect the chain reduces the likelihood of\nvandalism, as this driveway leads past the office entrance, which is not visible from the street or\nfrom the residences in the area. Also, as this parking lot is not visible from the street, and school\nis only in session during the day, and then only 185 days out of a 365 day year, the same reasons\nfor closing the gates to the parking lot at Crown Beach at sunset would be in play for limiting\naccess to this parking lot.\n\"ADA Problem #2: There is no ADA ramp to get up only the sidewalk on Sandcreek Way. My\nwife is disabled; we went to vote at Lum School last election. We used the supercrosswalk, but\nwhen we got to the area near the school office where the voting booths were located, there was\nno ADA ramp to get off the sidewalk to the driveway that leads to the office. This is the same\ndriveway that would be used by people cutting through the schoolyard to get to a bus stop,\nshould one be placed at Lum School.\n\"The City has indicated the building a bus stop at Ivy Walk would require painting and marking a\ncrosswalk. I pointed out that the crosswalk at Heather Walk and Heather Isle does not have a\npainted crossing. That is the very next bus stop west of Grand. However, I was informed that the\nregulations now require newly installed bus stops to have a marked crossing, and the Arlington\nIsle stop does not need a crossing because it is grandfathered in under the old regulations. I do\nnot believe that painting a crosswalk near Ivy Walk will encourage students at Lum School to\ncross Otis when they have the supercrosswalk at Lum School.\n\"To summarize: No one (other than an unnamed person on City staff) wants the bus stops. Shelve\nthis proposal, and revisit it someday if someone actually expresses a need for a bus stop and you\ncan buy the extra few minutes of run time that will be needed. And if you are absolutely\ncompelled to put in a stop, put it on the safe side of crosswalks and intersecting streets so that it\ndoes not interfere with the visibility needed by us old, gray-headed pedestrians crossing this\nheavily used street, and vehicles entering the traffic on Otis Drive. A stop at Ivy Walk would be\nmuch safer than a stop at Lum School or a stop at Willow. Sincerely, Peter Muzio.\"\n7", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2021-01-14", "page": 9, "text": "\"The Missing Link\" of\nAlameda Shoreline Park\nOn Harbor Bay the San Francisco\nBay Trail is incorporated into the\nShoreline Park Shoreline Park\n.\nincludes both grassy areas and\npaths for both pedestrians and\nbicyclists to safely access the\nviews and fresh air. Hundreds of\nresidents and Harbor Bay\nBusiness Park workers walk and\nbike these paths. During the\npandemic use has greatly\nincreased, which is vital to\nphysical and mental health.\nThis photo shows a wide section\nof the Shoreline Park concrete\npath that ends abruptly,\nnarrowing into a ragged, asphalt\npath.", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2021-01-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-10-22", "page": 7, "text": "\"big box\" store. The Zoning Code would be further amended to require that the use permit\nbe amended for a large format retail store, in addition to the standard use permit conditions.\nIn that case, the key issues could be addressed in terms of its design, operations and the issue\nof sale leakage. He noted that this was a new presentation, and that there had not been any\ncommunity feedback at this point.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nMs. Karen Bay noted that she was speaking as an Alameda resident, and was looking\nforward to the workshop, which she believed was very timely. She supported amending the\nZoning Code to define and address large format retail stores, and supported the requirement\nof a use permit for all large format retail store. She believed the City's retail policy needed\nsome updating because so much had changed since 2004. She believed that the City had\nmore clarity and understanding about the retail development process since then. She had\nreviewed the DDA as it related to the Alameda Landing project as approved, and believed\nthat the City had approved a lifestyle center, not a hybrid center, and believed the wording\nshould be changed to reflect that. She suggested that the term \"lifestyle center\" be defined.\nThe public hearing was closed for Board discussion.\nMr. Thomas requested the Planning Board's thoughts on the definition, as well as the\nidea of requiring a conditional use permit. He noted that there were many people who\nwould be interested in looking at a prohibition on stores over a certain size. He noted that\nthe issues of stopping sales leakage and historic buildings were of concern to the\ncommunity; he noted that the Del Monte building had been a centerpiece of that debate.\nMr. Thomas noted that care should be taken in the definitions and prohibitions, and added\nthat there were many in the community who would like a \"big box\" prohibition. He noted\nthat it would not be possible to write a zoning ordinance that prohibited a particular\nretailer, and that naming certain retailers as acceptable, and others as unacceptable, would\nnot be appropriate.\nMember Lynch complimented staff on tackling this complex issue very well. He\ncautioned against reinventing the wheel, and did not want any legal troubles to result. He\nnoted that different ordinances did not need to be created, and that the Planning Board\nhad the authority to deny a permit. He believed this issue had been over-complicated, and\nthat the use of the conditional use permit process would generally be adequate. He\npreferred to defer to the Economic Development Commission and the previous Boards,\nwhich already had an excellent strategic plan for Alameda.\nMember McNamara did not have enough information to move forward on this issue, and\nhad read information about the model used by Fort Collins, Colorado, with respect to\ntheir very specific and stringent big box retail policy.\nMr. Thomas thanked Doug Garrison for pulling a large amount of information together\nfor this staff report.\nPage 7 of 11", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2015-03-26", "page": 5, "text": "\"essay\" questions. Staff has secured a booth at the Earth Day Celebration at Washington Park on April 25, and\nwill order new SSHRB banners for this and other events. Staff also shared that renting space at the Park Street\nSpring festival would be very costly, and that Rob Ratto, PSBA Executive Director is trying to arrange for free\nor low-cost space at the event. Member Sorensen announced that he will be able to provide free space at the\nJam at Neptune Beach on June 21st and 22nd Members will be needed to staff the booths, and sign-up sheets\nfor all three events were circulated. Member Sorensen suggested that the Board might also distribute the\nsurvey at the Chamber event on April 10. The committee will continue to work on the survey and SSHRB\nbrochure, and will report back at the April meeting. The City has offered to provide City of Alameda shopping\nbags to all who fill out the survey, but there may be other costs for printing and other materials for the event.\nA Motion was made to authorize the committee to spend an amount not to exceed $400 for materials.\nM/S Williams / Villareal Unanimous\nStaff shared how much each agency would receive if the $6,753 were to be distributed proportionally to\nthe four applicants.\n3.-E\nUPDATE ON SSHRB HOMELESS COUNT PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL ON APRIL 7\nDiscussion and Action item with a suggested time limit of 20 minutes.\nPresident Biggs reported that he had collected photos from the homeless Count conducted in September 2014,\nand that he was preparing a PowerPoint presentation to accompany his report to the Council. He will present\nhis report at the May 5th meeting. This is the same meeting that the Council will hear Public Comment and\nvote on the FY 15-16 CBDG funding. Board members are encouraged to attend.\n4.\nBOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nMember Villareal requested that co-sponsorship and the consideration of providing funds for the 6th annual\nAlameda Harvey Milk Day celebration be placed on the April agenda.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS- NONE\n6.\nADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 8:35 PM. M\\S Hyman \\ Sorensen Unanimous (6-0)\nRespectfully submitted by:\nJim Franz\nSecretary\n5", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2015-03-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 8, "text": "\"must encourage status quo;\" the matter is critical and gives the OGC process\neffectiveness and power; he does not agree with the use of the term \"should;\"\nexpressed concern about the five year penalty; stated that he does not think the\nsituation in government has been so troubling for someone to muck up the gears of the\ngovernment process; he is not convinced of imposing such a drastic penalty; it is the\nright of the people to attend OGC and Council meetings; he does not think Council\nshould be so heavy handed in the penalty; the penalty is not fair or democratic.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter may return to the OGC.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he has concerns over the Null and Void provision;\nthe OGC does not have the power to declare matters Null and Void; when the OGC\nchallenges a Council decision, the decisions must be put in abeyance.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed support for the recommendations; stated there have been\nseveral lively conversations with the OGC; the ordinance has been in place for over one\ndecade; a number of things may need to be changed going forward; the OGC and\nSunshine Ordinance came about from large-scale community conversation; there have\nbeen proposals and differences in opinion on what may or may not be within the\nconfines of the City Charter; if constituents are interested in seeing certain things\nchange, proposals to take action through amending the Charter or other alternatives\ncan occur via robust community conversation; it is a good time to make changes; a\ntremendous amount of effort has been put forth in the proposed language before\nCouncil; she is prepared to support the matter; expressed support for all members of\nthe OGC through the years; stated a substantial amount of time has been put into the\nmatter; an ordinance has been put forth which will ensure the City is as open and\ntransparent as possible; she would like to encourage Council, the OGC, staff and the\ncommunity to have a larger discussion on the meaning of open government.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:47\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nContinued July 20, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nSeptember 7, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-11-27", "page": 13, "text": "\"primarily\" in \"primarily used to host.\"\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the Council would not treat the definition of\nyouth center the same for Alameda Recreation and Park Department (ARPD) recreation\ncenters and a martial arts studio on Webster Street.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded there is more clarity surrounding the definition of\nparks than a martial arts studio.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if ARPD requested their centers be left out of\nthe definition, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if ARPD's protection would be removed by\nteaching martial arts, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if staff modified the State definition of youth center to\ninclude ARPD centers, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if Council could eliminate youth center as a sensitive\nuse and keep the ARPD centers.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded doing so is an option; stated the City would want\nto ensure certain federal enforcement priorities are effectuated.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the definition could instead read: \"a youth center is a\nfacility determined by the ARPD to be a recreation center\".\nMayor Spencer inquired what the State's recommendation is regarding distance from\nschools, to which the Economic Development Manager responded the State's\nrecommendation is at 600 feet.\nMayor Spencer inquired what is the City's proposed distance, to which the Economic\nDevelopment Manager responded 1000 feet.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether having the language read: \"a facility exclusively used\nto host recreational or social activities for minors\" would apply to ARPD, to which the\nAssistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated almost all recreation facilities, park events and\nclasses are offered to minors and adults; inquired if the criteria is a facility exclusively\nused by youth.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative, stated ARPD centers would be\ncarved out as protected.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there was discussion at a previous\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 27, 2018\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-11-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 23, "text": "\"streamline and expedite permits for businesses\" on page 27; the process is an ongoing issue\nfor businesses; people of color and women are not included under the list in Section LU-11 on\npage 27; the Section needs to include people of color and women; the list should be\nalphabetically; people of color are a historically marginalized population; she is saddened to see\nthe exclusions; the \"partnerships\" should be listed alphabetically; photos included throughout\nthe General Plan are mostly white people;, she is saddened to see the images.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not disagree with Councilmember Herrera Spencer\nregarding Section LU-11; she does not think the list was meant to be inclusive or exclusive; the\nSection states: \"interventions that break down barriers to employment pre-historically\nmarginalized populations such as: youth, seniors, people with disabilities. stated that she\nwould have added unhoused individuals to the list; the term \"such as\" expands the definition;\nshe would like to ensure the recommendations provided by Councilmember Knox White would\nnot hamper the Recreation and Parks Department's ability to pursue outside funding; since\nCouncil has not yet approved the project, the actions listed in the General Plan seem to be\njumping ahead.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated that she does not think adding the term \"support\"\nwould hamper either being lead agency or partner on a grant; the term change still shows the\nimportance to the City; adding the term is fine.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether removing the actions causes any difficulty.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated that she has come to the discussion late and would\nlike time to read the details and provide an accurate answer.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the recommendations provided should be considered to have staff\nlook at all the potential ramifications and implications; staff should report back to Council.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff can report back to Council; the\nlist helps identify high priority matters; there is a way to re-write the policy and indicate support\nfor efforts with partners; staff can list facilitation of seeking funding or pursue mapping, trash\nremoval, signage, oil spill, public access structure and additional items; the General Plan is a\npolicy level document; there has not been much Council discussion about the project; the\nGeneral Plan takes a good idea and puts it out in the open.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the section is listed as \"Conservation Climate Action Element;\"\nCouncil has held discussions about conservation and climate action; the description includes:\n\"protecting and restoring natural habitats to support bio-diversity and to prepare for climate\nchange is a key goal of the General Plan;\" maps which establish a biological inventory should\nbe done; expressed support for funding being acquired to help with oil spill booms and\nprotection of sensitive habitat areas affected by oil spills; proposed language can be modified;\nhowever, she would like to give the Recreation and Parks Director and Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director the opportunity to confirm; inquired whether Council can provide\ndirection to staff.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he will need to know whether\nCouncil is adopting the General Plan and asking staff to come back with potential revisions; staff\nwill return after working through tribal language with the Planning Board; the Transportation\nAppendix will be worked on with the Transportation Commission; it will be easiest if the General\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n23", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2017-06-12", "page": 2, "text": "#2006012091) in 2006. An Environmental Assessment for the Proposed\nMaster Plan Amendment has been prepared.\nStaff Member Thomas gave a presentation The staff report and attachments can be found\nat: https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3066059&GUID=783D43D9-\nABD6-4E81-B2EC-7E52AF26CCE2&FullText=1\nSean Whiskeman, Catellus, gave a presentation detailing their new master plan\napplication.\nLeslie and Alan Cameron, Bay Ship and Yacht, said they are excited to partner with\nCatellus and expand Alameda's working waterfront.\nBoard Member Curtis asked about the change in the staff report from 300 to 600 units.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the original plan for all of Alameda Landing included 300\nunits. He said the 600 number includes the 287 nearly completed units at the current\nphase of Alameda Landing.\nBoard Member Zuppan asked about the size of the park space.\nStaff Member Thomas said it would be 4.5 acres, including 100 feet from the water along\nthe full length of the residential.\nBoard Member Burton asked how the plan to keep the two warehouses would affect plans\nto reinforce the shoreline infrastructure.\nMr. Whiskeman explained that the Bay Ship portion would have to be repaired if they ever\nredeveloped their site.\nBoard Member Mitchell opened the public hearing.\nBrent Aboudara expressed concern about construction and warehouse truck traffic and\nparking. He said he is glad the hotel is gone from the plan and is sad to see the reduction\nin park acreage.\nNick Ellis said he supports the plan and efforts to develop a blue collar incubator.\nDiana Maiden Aiken said she looks forward to enjoying the estuary access. She said we\nneed a diversity of homes.\nTony Daysog said we should keep the focus on creating jobs. He said Catellus has\nbenefitted from their overall project and we need to conduct a full EIR to evaluate the\nchange in traffic impacts caused by new housing.\nApproved Minutes\nPage 2 of 10\nJune 12, 2017\nPlanning Board Meeting", "path": "PlanningBoard/2017-06-12.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2011-10-10", "page": 11, "text": "#22- This Conditional Use Permit PLN08-0479, as amended on October 10, 2011 will be\nreviewed by the Alameda Planning Board in six months from the date of these conditions of\napproval, as modified and upon the receipt of a verifiable complaint which cannot be\nresolved by the Community Development Director on an administrative level. [See\namended resolution attached.]\nMotion made to approve the conditions of approval as amended above by Board\nmember Kohlstrand, seconded by Board member Burton. Approved 5-0.\n9-B\nUse Permit Annual Review - PLN09-0184 - Applicant - Chengben Wang for\nEncinal Terminals - An annual review for compliance with conditions for use of the\nproperty located at 1523 Entrance Road/Buena Vista Avenue commonly referred to\nas \"Encinal Terminals\".\nAndrew Thomas, Planning Services gave an overview of the Use Permit. He reported that\nover the last 18 months there has been some progress on the Master Plan although all\nthree properties are currently in receivership. It is doubtful that there will be any progress\non the project until the financial issues get resolved. He reported that the City has received\ncalls inquiring about the properties by potential developers. The City needs to make sure\nthat there is a viable Master Plan in place for who ever develop the sites, which works given\nthe economic times.\nBoard member Zuppan asked if any of the calls regarding the property referenced the\nMaster Plan documents.\nMr. Thomas stated that all of the calls have inquired as to what the City is willing to consider\non the sites. He also stated that the Chipman site has been zoned for residential and the\ntentative map was approved, although it has since expired.\nPresident Ezzy-Ashcraft asked what protection the City has against someone purchasing\nthe property in foreclosure and developing it as they wish.\nFarimah Faiz, Assistant City Attorney, responded that the property is zoned MX and any\npotential developer would need to get a Master Plan approved by the City prior to any\ndevelopment of the sites.\nMr. Thomas stated that there is currently an Interim Use Permit for the Encinal Terminals,\nwhich is good for one more year which allows for a variety of uses.\nMotion made to accept the report of compliance by Board member Henneberry,\nseconded by Zuppan. Approved 5-0.\n9-C\nPLN11-0220 - Alameda Point Northwest Territories - Interim Use Permit. The\napplicant, San Francisco Regional Sports Car Association is proposing to hold\ndriver's skill events/autocross events on the Northwest Territories at the most north\nwestern area of Alameda Point. The events would occur on weekends. Staff\nrequests continuance to the meeting of 10/24/2011.\nPage 11 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2011-10-10.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2011-10-12", "page": 1, "text": "$\nMinutes of the\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING\nWEDNESDAY, October 12, 2011\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:03 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nSuzanne Whyte, Board Member\nMichael Hartigan, Board Member\nGail Wetzork, Board Member\nStaff:\nJane Chisaki, Library Director\nChristina Baines, Recording Secretary\nAbsent:\nCatherine Atkin President\nNancy Lewis Vice President\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nAn asterisk indicates items so accepted or approved on the Consent Calendar\nA.\n*Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Month of September 2011.\nB.\n*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of September 14, 2011.\nC.\n*Library Services Reports for the Month of August 2011.\nD.\n*Financial Report Reflecting FY 10 Expenditures by Fund for September 2011.\nE.\n*Bills for Ratification for the Month of September 2011.\nBoard Member Hartigan expressed concern with the decline in checkouts across the board at Main, WEB,\nand BFI on the August Service Report. Director Chisaki indicated some rebalancing of the collection is\nin the process and with the upgrade of the computer system, the number of floating collections will be\nincreased and this may improve these numbers.\nThere being no further comments, Board Member Whyte, seconded by Board Member Wetzork moved\napproval of the minutes as presented. The motion was carried by a 3-0 vote.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2011-10-12.pdf"}
{"body": "LibraryBoard", "date": "2010-09-08", "page": 1, "text": "$\nTERILA\nORATEO\nMinutes of the\nALAMEDA FREE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING\nSeptember 8, 2010\nThe regular meeting of the Alameda Free Library Board was called to order at 6:01 p.m.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nMike Hartigan, President\nSuzanne Whyte, Vice President\nCatherine Atkin, Board Member\nGail Wetzork, Board Member\nAbsent:\nNone\nStaff:\nJane Chisaki, Library Director\nMarsha Merrick, Recording Secretary\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nAn asterisk indicates items so accepted or approved on the Consent Calendar.\nA.\n*Report from the Library Director Highlighting Activities for the Months of August and\nSeptember 2010. Accepted.\nB.\n*Draft Minutes of the Regular Library Board Meeting of July 14, 2010. Approved.\nC.\n*Library Services Reports for the Months of June and July 2010. Accepted.\nD.\n*Financial Reports Reflecting FY10 Expenditures by Fund for July and August 2010. Accepted.\nE.\n*Bills for Ratification for the Months of July and August 2010. Approved.\nPresident Hartigan asked why there were no budget dollars in the individual line items; the Finance\nDepartment has not dropped them in yet. Hartigan then asked why the payroll dollars looked so out-of-\nwhack from one month to the next, almost tripling these expenditures from July to August. Staff will\ntalk with Finance to see what happened and report back at the next meeting.\nVice President Whyte asked how the book machine was doing. Director Chisaki said it had been having\nsome issues which the company in Germany fixed, and testing continues. The Library does not yet have\nthe software that will alert us if the machine is down, but that is coming.\nBoard Member Atkin proclaimed the End of Summer Reading Ceremony a great success, and thanked\nVice President Whyte for her eloquent remarks. President Hartigan said this is the first time in 8-9 years\nthat he has missed it.", "path": "LibraryBoard/2010-09-08.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2007-02-11", "page": 3, "text": "$1\n$1\n$0\n$0\nJuniors Non-Resident*\n$8\n$10\n$8\n$2\n$0\nCART FEES:\nCurrent\nRecommended\nChange\nSingle Rider (Non-Shared Cart)\n$14\n$15\n$1\nSenior M-F per player\n$11\n$13\n$2\nLate Twilight\n$9\n$10\n$1\nMif\n$8\nMONTHLY PASSES:\nCurrent\nSurcharge\nRecommended\nSurcharge\nChange\nRes. Sr. (M-Th + Fri (JC only)\n$85\n$0\n$100\n$0\n8.1.5\nResident (M-Th + Fri (JC only)\n$100\n$0\n$115\n$0\n$15\nNon-Res. (M-Th + Fri (JC only)\n$130\n$3\n$195\n$0\n$65\nTOURNAMENTS:\nCurrent\nRecommended\nGreen Fees\nCart Req\nMerch\nEF/JC\nCart Req\nMerch*\nMon Thurs\n$30\nno\n$6\n$50/$48\nyes\n$5\nMon Thurs (Senior)\n$30\nno\n$6\n$38/$36\nyes\n$0\nFriday\n$35\nyes\n$6\n$52/$50\nyes\n$5\nWeekends and Holidays\n$35\nyes\n$6\n$60/$56\nyes\n$5\nMif 9-HOLE COURSE RATES:\nCurrent\nRecommended\nChange\nRegular Weekday\n$9\n$10\n$1\nDriving Current\nRecommended\nChange\nRegular Weekend\n$11\n$12\n$1\nRange\nSenior Weekday\n$7\n$8\n$1\nSmall\n$0\n$3\n$3\nReplay Rate\n$7\n$7\n$0\nMedium\n$4\n$5\n$1\nJunior Resident\n$1\n$1\n$0\nLarge\nI\n$6\n$7\n$1\nJunior Non-Resident\n$4\n$5\n$1\nX-Large\n$8\n$9\n$1\nPractice Area: $5 w/ small bucket\n*EF Mon-Fri after 12:00: Weekends &\nHolidays after twilight only\n** Can be waived\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 3\nRevised format only 3/5/07\nGolf Commission Minutes", "path": "GolfCommission/2007-02-11.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-19", "page": 2, "text": "$1,091,000; Encinal: $1,433,000].\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the County has identified items that need to\nbe fixed, to which Mr. Shemwell responded the County has not come out and identified\nitems to be repaired; stated the County could come out at any time and direct that any\noutstanding compliance issues have to be repaired.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the School District bond measure included\nany operational or capital funding for pools, to which Mr. Shemwell responded in the\nnegative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated liability has been discussed; inquired whether both\nparties are comfortable regarding liability issues, to which Mr. Shemwell responded in\nthe affirmative around the particular drain issues.\nFollowing School Board discussion, Councilmember Tam questioned whether slide 3\namounts on operation and maintenance for both swim centers show payments are\ncloser to a 50-50 split, rather than the agreed upon 60-40 split.\nMr. Shemwell responded the agreement expired in 2000; stated the pools have been\noperating on a handshake agreement to continue the 60-40 split; the School District has\ntaken on utility costs and has been billed for 60% of the City expenses.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the District has paid 47% and the City has paid\n53% since the Agreement expired, to which Mr. Shemwell responded in the negative;\nstated the School District took on the utilities and has been billed for operational costs in\nthe last two or three years.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated the 60-40 split was occurring for both\noperations and utilities until two years ago when the District staff could not determine\nwhether the meters were separate and agreed to discontinue billing the City for utilities\nuntil the matter could be resolved.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding the division of use from 3:00\np.m. to 10:00 p.m., the Recreation and Park Director stated figures are based on the\ntotal hours of operations; during the summer, pools are used from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00\np.m.; use is: 25% for School District programs, such as swimming and water polo, 25%\nfor City programs, such as Swim to Live, and 50% for a variety of non-profits, including\nchildren swim teams and adult masters swim.\nThe Acting City Manager noted the City sponsored programs are during the summer\nand on Saturdays.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated since the City and School District both have 25% of the use\nand the remaining 50% is the community, one fair suggestion would be splitting the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nBoard of Education\n2\nMay 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-10-03", "page": 5, "text": "$124,310.\" Adopted.\n(*17-582) Ordinance No. 3190, \"Approving an Amended and Restated Lease and\nAuthorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the\nTerms of an Amended and Restated Lease Agreement with Mr. Hi Chi Chen and Mrs.\nLena Muy Chiv, a Married Couple, DBA Hometown Donuts, for 1930 Main Street.\"\nFinally passed.\n(*17-583) Ordinance No. 3191, \"Approving a Grant of Non-Exclusive Easement and\nAuthorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the\nTerms of Grant of Non-Exclusive Easement to Alameda Boys & Girls Club and Alameda\nUnified School District for Access and Maintenance.\" Finally passed.\n(*17-584) Ordinance No. 3192, \"Approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement of Building\n40, Located at 800 West Tower Avenue at Alameda Point, with Bladium, Inc, a\nCalifornia Corporation.' Finally passed.\n(17-585) Ordinance No. 3193, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code Section 4-4\n(Disposable Food Service Ware) to Prohibit Certain Single-Use Plastics such as Straws\nand Clarifying Compostable Food Service Ware Requirements.' Finally passed.\nMayor Spencer stated that she left the last meeting on Council business before the\nordinance was introduced; thanked Council for supporting the ordinance.\nExpressed support for the ordinance; stated CASA will work with the restaurant\ncommunity to transition to compostable take-out packaging: Ruth Abbe, CASA.\nMayor Spencer stated letters were received from Edison Elementary School students in\nsupport of the green efforts.\nCouncilmember Oddie thanked Mayor Spencer for bringing the referral forward; stated\nThursday at 6:30 p.m. there will be a CASA workshop for updating the City's Local\nAction Plan for climate protection.\nMayor Spencer thanked staff for their work.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(17-586) Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to the Mayor's Fourth of July\nParade Committee Members, Followed by the Committee Members Presenting a Check\nto the USS Hornet.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nOctober 3, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2016-11-10", "page": 4, "text": "$20,000.00 to support parks and health and wellness programs. The Bike for the Parks was also\nsuccessful with 531 riders and positive comments from participants. Alameda Rotary gave a lot of\nsupport along with ARPD staff who were the backbone of the event. There were 5 major sponsors that\nstepped up and donated to cover the costs and $20,000 was secured from the event.\nC. Recreation and Parks Director Report\nParks:\nBall Field Renovation at Krusi Park, fence repair and pruning completed over at Tillman, fence\nrepaired for access at Sweeney Park, two additional Memorial Benches were installed at Franklin\nand Shoreline Parks.\nRecreation:\nMayor's Tree Lighting will take place on December 3 at City Hall, sign-ups for Breakfast with Santa\nis on December 10 and Santa Home Visits are underway, TGIF and Non School Day Programs\ncoming up for the Holiday week, Bike for the Parks was extremely successful. A big shout out to the\nGene Oh who was the driving force behind the event, the committee and Friends of the Park\nFoundation for raising over $20,000.00 for funding that will go to the Park programs. Women's\nSoftball league has begun on Friday nights at lower Washington.\nMastick Senior Center:\nMastick's annual Halloween dance was held in the social hall on October 27th at 1:00 PM with an\nattendance of 92 Mastick members which was the highest in the past three years. Teens Teaching\nTechnology is a very popular joint program held by Mastick Senior Center and the Underground\nTeen Center where middle school and high school students help seniors with questions they have\nabout their electronic devices. The Ukulele Jam and Sing-Along was another popular class with 20\nmembers participating. Heavenly Hair at 50 was held by Brandon Stanford and his staff at\nCompliments Salon who gave demonstration and tips on how to care for aging hair. The workshop\nwas successful with an attendance of 40 people and a waitlist of 20.\nProjects:\nThere will be a public meeting at Woodstock Center on December 1st at 6:00 PM to review the three\ndesign concepts for the Woodstock Playground renovation. The Alameda Recreation and Park\nDepartment and Architects has met to create conceptual design specifications for the new Krusi Park\nRecreation Building and hope to have the RFP ready to go by early 2017. Estuary Park project is\nwell underway and hoping to finish early 2017.\nCommissioner Limoges was concerned that the Alameda Sun had that the Recreation and Park\nmeeting was canceled. Pat Russi talked to the editors of the Sun to correct the problem.\nITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA:\nSET NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, December 8, 2016\nADJOURNMENT: Chair Tilos adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m.\n4", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2016-11-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-10-04", "page": 14, "text": "$200,000 and Capital Improvement Projects Fund Budget by $100,000. Introduced.\nThe Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired if the Public Art Commission (PAC) made the\nrecommendations to appropriate $100,000 to Jean Sweeny Public Art and use part of\nthe $100,000 for maintenance.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated the Council is\nthe body that appropriates funds; the Public Art Ordinance states that maintenance of\npublic art is an eligible expense of the public art fund.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the PAC makes recommendations to the\nPlanning Board.\nThe Community Development Director responded the PAC expressed interest in the\nordinance being drafted to create a mandatory requirement that money be paid into the\nart fund; because of the zoning ordinance, the City cannot dictate how a developer\ndecides to use the funds; developers have to be given the choice between paying into\nthe fund or providing art onsite.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if the PAC had input, to which the Community\nDevelopment Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there discussion on how to capture cultural\nart.\nThe Community Development Director responded cultural art should be free and open\nto the public; the criteria could be added to the Request for Proposal (RFP) process.\nCouncilmember Daysog suggested codes could be implemented for people to look up\nand see cultural event that happened years ago.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the Council adopted a Master Plan for Jean Sweeny\nPark, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if there was a public art component in the Master Plan,\nto which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the estimated cost of the public art component was\n$100,000.\nThe Community Development Director responded the $100,000 is a way to jump start\nthe public art design and fabrication.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the estimate is for the entire Jean Sweeny\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 4, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-10-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-07", "page": 12, "text": "$200,000 or $35,000; the resolution is correct in stating that the\nmatter should be brought to the CIC at the earliest convenience if\nthe estimated costs exceeds $35,0000.\nThe General Counsel stated the policy was adopted by the Council on\nSeptember 6; noted Page 2, Item #3 states \"Comply with the\nCommunity Improvement Commission Policy regarding Procedures for\nHiring of Special Legal Counsel.\nChair Johnson stated that the policy and resolution state two\ndifferent things ARRA may have the same inconsistency the intent\nwas that matters be brought to the CIC if estimated outside counsel\nlegal fees are more than $35,000.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the Commission would approve the\nresolution.\nCommissioner Gilmore and Chair Johnson concurred with Commissioner\ndeHaan.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the ground rule should be that the\nmatter comes to the appropriate governing body if the estimate is\nover $35,000 but General Counsel can spend up to $35,000 per matter\nto initiate the process.\nChair Johnson stated that bullet point 1 [General Counsel is\nauthorized by CIC to spend up to $35,000 per matter from\nappropriate project budget without prior CIC approval] should be\nomitted; the correction should be made to the ARRA policy also.\nCommissioner deHaan moved adoption of the resolution and approval\nof the policy with modification to omit bullet point 1 [General\nCounsel is authorized by CIC to spend up to $35,000 per matter from\nappropriated project budget without prior CIC approval].\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(06-057CC/06-003CIC) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Financial\nReport and approve mid-year budget adjustments, including General\nFund reserve policy and infrastructure review.\nThe Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief update on the December 6,\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n2\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-06-28", "page": 2, "text": "$230,000.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam requested an explanation for the urgency to purchase a\nreplacement disk storage solution.\nThe Information Technology Manager stated systems have been running on servers\nand the EMC Storage Area Network system for a number of years; storage has been\ndepleted because of email growth and graphics; email is 90% full; messages cannot be\nretrieved when a server is out of disc space; disk space has not been increased over\nthe last six years.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the staff report notes that the current system does not have\nthe ability to recover lost information if the system crashes.\nThe Information Technology Manager stated system backups are stored on unreliable\nlegacy magnetic tapes; multiple tapes are needed as disk space continues to grow;\nspace is not available to hold all of the data.\nMayor Gilmore stated storage space is cheap; inquired why the Replacement Disk\nStorage Solution is so expensive.\nThe Information Technology Manager responded the Storage Area Network allows\neveryone to share data and provides fault tolerance.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the proposed storage platform is the best\nprice.\nThe Information Technology Manager responded four proposals were submitted; stated\nCompellent, Dell's midrange system, is the fastest growing vendor in the industry; price\nis not the only issue; technology is important; Compellent provides options and provides\nmore disk space for the money; Compellent uses 60% disk drive versus other vendors\nusing 50%.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what type of on-going support would be needed.\nThe Information Technology Manager responded the vendor would provide a three-year\nwarranty; stated training would be provided to allow staff management of many\nfeatures.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether a support contract would be needed, to which\nthe Information Technology Manager responded definitely.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired how long the City's needs would be met with the proposed\nsolution.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\n2\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 28, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-06-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-20", "page": 23, "text": "$28 million is likely not the correct amount to allocate; the analysis of the sale will drive\nthe funding amounts; $20 million is too high for the project; dedicating so much of the\nARPA funds toward one project is not going to fly; ; the project's proximity to amenities\nmakes the Marina Village Inn an asset; Council should not miss the opportunity;\nexpressed concern about groundwater; stated groundwater is something that cuts\nacross the City; expressed support for taking advantage of the storm water system.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed support for spending ARPA funding as needed based off\nassessments for the Marina Village Inn; stated the project is a good use of funds; equity\nis about helping those who need the most; there will be times when significant amounts\nof resources will be used in order to have an impact on those who need help; Council\ncan do something positive with the project; Council has addressed issues related to\nbudget shortages; further cuts should not be made to services; expressed support for\nensuring the budget is being taken care of; expressed concern about additional budget\ncuts; stated that she would like to find a way to maximize the use of ARPA funds for\nhousing needs; questioned other ways to maximize and assist with housing needs;\nstated matters are being discussed at the State level, including UBI; there will be\nmultiple layers of assistance coming to families and those in need; Council can make\nthe greatest impact using ARPA funds for housing.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should think big; ARPA funds have been described\nas a once in a lifetime opportunity; outlined the staff report; stated that she agrees with\nusing ARPA funds to purchase the Marina Village Inn; however, not using $20 million;\ndifferent funding sourcs will be incorporated; in addition to federal funding, there will be\nmoney coming in from the State and County which can be used towards operating\ncosts; outlined a meeting with Alameda Justice Alliance, Transform Alameda and\nAlameda Renters Coalition; expressed support for a Alameda Hospital program similar\nto the White Bird Clinic, which provides mental health and substance abuse programs\nand acts as a respite day center for those needing to get off the street; participants do\nnot need to be admitted or stay overnight; the City Manager is working with similarly\nsized neighboring cities to find funding mechanisms; there is exciting potential for the\nCity to provide the program and alternative services; the program will help Alameda\nHospital, residents and business centers; there is a pot of money for pilot programs,\nsuch as UBI; funding will be directed towards youth exiting the foster care system;\noutlined the foster care exit process; stated UBI can provide assistance; funding can\nalso be used for pregnant mothers within specific income categories; she supports\ninvestments being made for youths; outlined a Mayor's Conference discussion of a\nStockton's UBI pilot program; stated that she is intrigued by the idea of a community\nland trust; the City of Oakland has provided a community land trust along with other\ncities; the opportunity arises when distressed or foreclosed property is able to be\npurchased by the City and used for affordable housing; she is interested in a community\nresiliency hub and would like to receive further information; inquired whether staff has\nenough direction from Council.\nThe City Manager stated sufficient direction has been provided; however, a specific\nmotion would be helpful.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 20, 2021\n16", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2010-01-21", "page": 6, "text": "$300 which totals $2,475. Chair Sullwold asked Matt Wisely to convey to\nmanagement to make sure employees are having juniors sign the NCGA form for\nproper reimbursement.\n4-C Update on Golf Complex Finances\nChair Sullwold stated that the financial report had not been received from the City.\nBob Sullwold stated that the Fry and Clark courses were down in rounds and\nrevenue. For the first six months of the fiscal rounds are down about 11%,\nrevenue is down roughly $60,000 or 4.5%. The financial performance is worse this\nyear than last year.\n4-D Consideration of Memorial Bench Program for the Golf Complex\nMatt Wisely and John Vest have researched concrete benches, and according to\nDale Lillard, the benches that are used at the parks run about $500 or $600. That is\nthe price just for the bench, not for the plaque. Chair Sullwold asked if they could\nget some pictures of the iron wood benches.\n5\nORAL REPORTS\n5-A\nGolf Shop and Driving Range activities report by John Vest\nNone\n5-B\nGolf Complex Maintenance activities report by Matt Wisely\nMatt Wisely stated that we received over 5 inches of rain since Saturday. Four trees\nwere lost, two gigantic eucalyptus trees on number one North alongside the pond on\nthe right hand side, one behind number one green on the Mif, and one leaning on\nthe driving range on the Mif. He is trying to get on ETA on the second pump that\nwas removed back in September. There is widespread flooding on the course and\nthey are trying to get the course back open for the weekend. There is a 50% chance\nof rain tomorrow. All the sloughs are backed up and the water is above the rocks on\nnumber five on the North in the fairway. The two trees that fell on number one North\nis because the slough between eighteen and one is now passed the cart path.\nThere may be no carts allowed this weekend. They are constantly moving water\nand cleaning debris. The bridge between 15 North and the maintenance yard is\nunder water. The course was closed today due to possible winds resulting in risks of\ntrees falling. As of January 1, we have 11 new staff members (four are ex City\nemployees) and seven new employees. Labor has been cut back due to the\nweather. The Par 3 course is being mowed everyday as well as changing the cups\ndaily. Matt responded to a question from Chair Sullwold regarding the Coastal\nRedwoods stating that they cannot handle salt, since they are watered with non-\npotable water. An arborist was out and stated the same. The trees are watered\nalong with the rest of the golf course. He believes that had we had winters like we're\n- 6 -\nGolf Commission Minutes -Thursday, January 21, 2010", "path": "GolfCommission/2010-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2016-03-24", "page": 2, "text": "$33,556 (ECHO/TL)). The Public Services funds available for distribution total $147,812.\nHe added that, since the Board will not be considering the HFH application and BFWC's\napplication for rental assistance, and because the remaining five agencies are requesting a total\nof $ 129,136, the Board can fully fund the five remaining agencies, and still have an additional\n$18,676 to allocate.\nPresident Biggs then introduced the first speaker.\nKate Rosenbaum, Development Associate for Legal Assistance for Seniors (LAS)\nMs. Rosenbaum thanked the city for their level of support, adding that, without it, they would not be\nable to offer the level of service they currently provide. They enjoy being a part of the Alameda\ncommunity, especially their relationship with Mastick Senior Center. She added that their Executive\nDirector has initiated discussion with AHA staff, Claudia Young, regarding a future housing project.\nShe concluded saying that she is available to answer any questions the Board might have.\nPatricia Bidar, Director of Development and Communications, Building Futures with Women\nand Children (BFWC)\nMs. Bidar began her presentation by thanking the City of Alameda for its on-going support of\nBFWC, and that it makes a tremendous difference in their clients lives.\nShe went on to speak to the withdrawal of their application for rental assistance, stating that BFWC\nstaff will continues to provide tenant-based rental assistance, and will be inviting the families on\nCentral Ave., who are being displaced, to a housing workshop. She added that the challenge of\nidentifying affordable units in which to place their clients is one of the reasons they withdrew their\napplication.\nMs. Bidar then made a request that the additional CDBG Public Service funds available be added\nto\nthe BFWC grant, and that their scope of work be expanded to include the provision of emergency\nhousing services.\nIn conclusion, she shared that the change in how Emergency Solutions Grants State funding for\nemergency shelters is now allocated, has resulted in the County receiving much less than they had\nreceived in the past. Last year, funding was allocated based on quality of services, and BFWC\nreceived nearly all of the county's allocation.\nErin Scott, Exec. Dir. Family Violence Law Center (FVLC)\nMs. Scott began by thanking the Board for its support, and for the careful consideration of the\nproposals. She added that, from FY 2013 - 14 to FY 2014 - 15, FVLC has seen a 17 percent\nincrease in the DV calls they receive from Alameda residents. She added that there seems to be\na\nreorganization at APD as to how they handled DV calls. In the past, an investigative team would\ntake the felonies, and the misdemeanors were handled at the patrol level. While FVLC is still written\ninto the protocol of APD, and still receives all the calls, all the investigation is now being done at the\npatrol level. She said that they will watch it very closely, and be in contact with the police\ndepartment, to assure that domestic violence is still considered a high priority.\nMs. Scott went on to say that a study at New York University in 2015 showed the positive impact\ncivil legal assistance has on domestic violence survivors and on the community. Furthermore, civil\nlegal assistance, which is what is being funded through this CDBG grant, helps reduce domestic\n2", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2016-03-24.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-04-20", "page": 4, "text": "$470,000. The net available cash balance at the end of March is down to $217,000.\nFortunately, Acting City Manager Lisa Goldman announced that the $300,000 loan\nfrom the Enterprise Fund to ARRA will be repaid before the end of the fiscal year.\nShe also announced that PILOT and surcharge will be eliminated in fiscal year\n2011-12, and that the Cost Allocation amount will be reevaluated.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\nNone\n7.\nOLD BUSINESS\nNone\n8.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nIncluded in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance Department\nshowing a surcharge payment for March 2011 of $4,000. The year-to-date total to\nthe General Fund is $67,488 for FY 2010/2011.\n9.\nITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA\nStatus Report on Long Term Lease, Mif Albright Negotiations, and proposal for\nGolf Complex reconfiguration by Ron Cowan and Harbor Bay Isle Associates,\nincluding Golf Commission recommendations, if any\nUpdate on Golf Complex Finances\n10.\nANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 7:18 p.m.\nThe agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\n4\nGolf Commission Minutes -Wednesday, April 20, 2011", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-20", "page": 9, "text": "$504,334 including contingencies, to Redgwick Construction for\nFernside Boulevard bike path and street improvements, San Jose\nAvenue to north of Otis Drive, No. P.W. 03-08-10. Accepted.\n(\n*08-219) Recommendation to set a Public Hearing for delinquent\nintegrated Waste Management charges for June 17, 2008. Accepted.\n(08-220) Resolution No. 14210, \"Approving an Amendment to\nMemorandum of Understanding between the Management and Confidential\nEmployees Association and the City of Alameda for the Period\nCommencing January 1, 2005 and Ending December 20, 2008. \" Adopted.\nThe Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated Council is very happy that the Management and\nConfidential Employees Association (MCEA) consented to enter into\nan agreement to extend the existing Memorandum of Understanding for\none year; requested that the Building Official advise who is in\nMCEA; stated MCEA came forward before negotiations started.\nThe Building Official stated MCEA consists of approximately 130\nmembersi the MCEA is fully aware of the City's revenue issues and\nthought that it was important to make the offer to the City; 80% of\nthe membership was in favor of the recommendation.\nMayor Johnson requested that the Building Official pass on\nCouncil's appreciation.\nThe Building Official stated that he would be happy to do so.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*08-221) Resolution No. 14211, \"Intention to Levy an Annual\nAssessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of\nAlameda for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 and Set a Public Hearing for June\n3, 2008. \" Adopted.\n( *08-222 - ) Ordinance No. 2981, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Amending Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) by Creating a Civic\nGreen Building Ordinance. Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(08-223 - ) Resolution No. 14212, \"Implementing the National Incident\nManagement System (NIMS) as the Official Regulatory Guidance for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMay 20, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 16, "text": "$593 per square foot for a 2500 square foot house ends up with a house priced at\n$1,347,000; EPS started with the all residential bucket at $582,000, as opposed to the\nsingle family bucket at $666,000, which ends up with a price of $1,462,000 for a 2500\nsquare foot single family house using the EPS methodology; EPS estimates that the\naverage premiums at Alameda Point to be 1% of sale price; the SunCal estimate is\n6.4%; explained the basis for SunCal's estimate; stated SunCal disagrees with the 1%;\nregarding absorption, SunCal is not opposed to changing to the City and EPS's\nrecommendation; if the City wants to take a slower absorption, it is fine with SunCal; for\nsingle family construction costs, SunCal estimates $115 versus EPS's estimate of $130;\nexplained the basis for SunCal's estimate; further stated another area that has been\ndiscussed is what should be anticipated as the real growth in home prices over time;\nSunCall's pro forma includes 2% starting in 2012; ESP recommends 1.4%; both sides\nhave gone back and forth over the analysis; long term construction cost trends range\nfrom -0.7% to 0.5%; SunCal included a 0% real price growth; all of SunCal's prices are\nincreased by CPI throughout the term of the project; there have been some clear\nmistakes in the EPS methodology as to price; EPS's premium analysis is simple;\nSunCal has done a lot more research on direct construction costs; regarding SunCal's\nAlbuquerque, New Mexico project with D.E. Shaw being put into bankruptcy, it is fair to\nsay any large real estate player, particularly in residential, has struggled in the past\nseveral years; assets have gone through a devaluation; SunCal and its partners have\nbeen severely hurt; in the Albuquerque example, $180 million in D.E. Shaw and\nSunCal's combined equity is in danger of being lost, which is an unfortunate\ncircumstance that is part of the price and risk of working in development; the good news\nis D.E. Shaw continues to invest along side of SunCal and to express faith that SunCal\nwill go forward, as evidenced by the continuing investment in the Alameda process in\nterms of the millions of dollars spent to date; SunCal would like to complete the process;\na project that the Council, Planning Board, citizens, D.E. Shaw and SunCal could be\nproud of will be presented to Council for consideration in the next 18 months to two\nyears; SunCal looks forward to the opportunity to complete the process.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the question is whether there\nwould be sufficient funding to pay for public amenities and community benefits\nenvisioned in the Master Plan; the answer is yes as demonstrated by two EPS pro\nformas delivered to the City on April 8th and April 26th; the density bonus option pro\nforma was sent to the Deputy City Manager - Development Services on April 26, 2010;\ninquired whether the pro forma was incorporated in the staff report.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the pro forma is an\nattachment to tonight's staff report.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired why staff has a different\nconclusion than SunCal regarding the density bonus option pro forma relating to\npayment of public amenities.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n5\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}