{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 78, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 77, "text": "From:\nDanny Roosevelt\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nvoicing support for the Jackson Park playground project\nDate:\nMonday, September 9, 2019 2:02:01 PM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. ***\nHi Amy, I wanted to make my voice heard and let you know my family and I strongly support\nthe proposal to build a playground at Jackson Park and we've love to see the city hire a\nlandscape architect to product 2-3 conceptual designs to help ensure the project is successful.\nPlease let me know if there's anything I can do to help!\n- Danny Roosevelt (Broadway and Central Ave)\n--\nDanny Roosevelt\ndannyroosevelt.com", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 76, "text": "From:\nhelenpak49@yahoo.com\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nCc:\nKHINEOUN KONG\nSubject:\nRe: Jackson Park agenda item on Recreation and Parks Commission 9/12/19\nDate:\nMonday, September 9, 2019 3:42:41 PM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. ***\nHi Amy,\nI am unable to attend the meeting but I'd like to see the Commissioners support hiring a\nlandscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual designs to create a beautiful functional play space\nat Jackson Park.\nThank you!\nHelen & Khineoun Kong\n2304 San Jose Ave\nAlameda, CA\n510-910-0763\nSent from my iPhone\nOn Sep 5, 2019, at 10:29 AM, Amy Wooldridge <AWooldridge@alamedaca.gov> wrote:\nHello Jackson Park neighbors,\nThis is to inform you that the Recreation and Parks Commission will be discussing the\noption of a play area at Jackson Park on Thursday, September 12, 2019 at City Hall,\nCouncil Chambers on the third floor. It is also televised. The meeting starts at 7:00pm.\nThe staff report and attachments are available on the city's website here. Just choose\nthe Recreation and Parks Commission from the drop down menu and then click on the\n9/12/2019 agenda. The blue hyperlinks on the agenda will take you to the staff report\nand attachments.\nThree options are being presented to the Commission for them to provide direction to\nstaff. These options include 1) hiring a landscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual\ndesigns for a small gathering space/natural play area; 2) to leave the space as it is and\nnot do a play area; 3) build a small natural play area/gathering space with pre-made\ncomponents from a playground supplier that are natural looking components such as a\nclimable rock or animal sculpture. All of the feedback from the neighborhood meeting\nis included as well as photo examples and options for a small landscape play area /\ngathering space.", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 75, "text": "From:\nYu-Yee Wu\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nRe: Jackson Park agenda item on Recreation and Parks Commission 9/12/19\nDate:\nThursday, September 5, 2019 11:19:20 PM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions.\n***\nHi Amy,\nThank you so much for the email and update. I was at the first meeting at Jackson Park but\ncould not stay the whole time. I ask that the Commission support options 1 or 3 to have an\nappropriate sized natural playground integrated into Jackson Park, ideally including a small\nswing structure.\nI believe that having a small playground for the growing number of families nearby is in line\nwith and supportive of the population changes and growth in Alameda. A small playground\nwill not totally change the character of the park, which spans two blocks, one block of which\ncan stay as it is for those who don't want change to still enjoy if they don't want to be around\nkids. I don't see a small local playground becoming a destination point like the other bigger\nand fancier playgrounds, but will serve to be a delight and resource for families like mine who\nlive nearby who would like to walk to the park with their kids and give them a playground\nwhere they can be more active. Because of its close proximity to all the restaurants and shops\non Park St, it will also be a nicer place to walk to after spending time on Park St and would\nhelp kids get out more of their energy before going home. I ask that the Commission vote for\na small playground in Jackson Park to support the growing number of families who live\nnearby now and in the future.\nThank you!\nYu-Yee Wu\nOn Sep 5, 2019, at 10:29 AM, Amy Wooldridge <AWooldridge@alamedaca.gov> wrote:\nHello Jackson Park neighbors,\nThis is to inform you that the Recreation and Parks Commission will be discussing the\noption of a play area at Jackson Park on Thursday, September 12, 2019 at City Hall,\nCouncil Chambers on the third floor. It is also televised. The meeting starts at 7:00pm.\nThe staff report and attachments are available on the city's website here. Just choose\nthe Recreation and Parks Commission from the drop down menu and then click on the\n9/12/2019 agenda. The blue hyperlinks on the agenda will take you to the staff report\nand attachments.\nThree options are being presented to the Commission for them to provide direction to", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 74, "text": "From:\nJ.J. Navarro\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nCc:\nSarah Henry\nSubject:\nRe: Jackson Park agenda item on Recreation and Parks Commission 9/12/19\nDate:\nThursday, September 5, 2019 2:16:12 PM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. ***\nHi Amy -\nThanks for your email.\nI will be out of town on the 12th and unable to attend the meeting.\nAs I've expressed in council chambers on two occasions, and during the neighborhood\nmeeting you hosted, I am very much in favor of building a tasteful, natural-looking play\nstructure in Jackson Park. In my view, it will go a long way to bring our community together,\ndeter the undesirable loitering and drug activity that the park is known for, and provide a much\nneeded play structure for nearby families.\nThank you for passing along my comments to the commissioners.\n-J.J. Navarro\nJ.J. Navarro\njinavarro@gmail.com\nm. 415-515-2259\nOn Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 10:29 AM Amy Wooldridge <AWooldridge@alamedaca.gov> wrote:\nHello Jackson Park neighbors,\nThis is to inform you that the Recreation and Parks Commission will be discussing the\noption of a play area at Jackson Park on Thursday, September 12, 2019 at City Hall, Council\nChambers on the third floor. It is also televised. The meeting starts at 7:00pm.\nThe staff report and attachments are available on the city's website here. Just choose the\nRecreation and Parks Commission from the drop down menu and then click on the\n9/12/2019 agenda. The blue hyperlinks on the agenda will take you to the staff report and\nattachments.\nThree options are being presented to the Commission for them to provide direction to staff.\nThese options include 1) hiring a landscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual designs for a", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 73, "text": "From:\nKasimira Riley\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nJackson Park\nDate:\nMonday, September 9, 2019 10:15:14 AM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. ***\nHi Amy,\nI'm writing you to let you know of my support for building a small play space for children in\nJackson park. I am in full support of hiring a landscape architect to create conceptual designs\nso we end up with a beautiful functional play space at Jackson Park.\nAs live just a few blocks away from Jackson park and have a 8 month old who would would\nlove to have a park and playground close by where he can be out in nature and interacting with\nother kids, I think the addition of a park would be a tremendous value add to the culture of\nthe community.\nI\nthink it is incredibly important to invest in the future of our community, and that is where I\nlook to the city to take care of the best interests of our children. I hope to have your support!\nKasi", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 72, "text": "From:\nAshley Lorden\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nJackson Park playspace\nDate:\nMonday, September 9, 2019 9:57:38 AM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions.\nHello,\nI believe you are working on the next step for the Jackson Park playspace project, getting a\nfew design options so Recreation and Parks and the community can form a plan. I strongly\nsupport this project; as someone who lives nearby, I don't use this park nearly as much as\nother parks (which are farther away from me) because I worry it's not a safe place for my\nchildren. I really like the idea of constructing a play area for children that is designed to feel\nlike a natural part of this historic park, using earth tones and organic materials wherever\npossible. This would help the park get a lot more use by neighborhood families, which can\nmake it safer for everyone.\nThank you for your work on this project!\nAshley Lorden", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 71, "text": "From:\nClaire Mathieson\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nPlease Forward to Recreation and Park Commissioners for 9/12 Agenda Item 7c\nDate:\nWednesday, September 11, 2019 4:09:38 PM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. ***\nDear Commissioners,\nMy name is Claire Mathieson, and I have been a resident of Park Avenue since 2000, when I\nwas a student at Otis Elementary School. I love Jackson Park because it is such a free, open\nspace; each day the park has many different kinds of visitors, and they are each able to use its\nblank green canvas to make it their own.\nWhen I was a child here, we did not have a playground, but we did not miss one either; we\nloved making up our own games. I have no significant childhood memories of playing on\nplaygrounds; however, some of my favorite memories feature games that my friends and I\ninvented - light stick tag, which my neighbors and I made up and played often in Jackson\nPark; concocting Harry Potter-esque potions from mud, grass, and leaves and using sticks as\nmagic wands; drawing elaborate chalk obstacle courses on asphalt and spending days working\nthrough the challenges together. Jackson Park is a unique place, a park that doesn't prescribe a\nway for children to play but rather provides them with a perfect, natural, open space where\nthey can bring their own imaginations together to create endless fun and enrichment in the\npresent and wonderful memories for the future.\nI think creativity is one of the most wondrous traits we have, and preserving natural,\ndistraction-free places like Jackson Park is essential to nourish creative thinking in an age\nwhen so much of what we do is fed to us through screens. Last year I participated in a\ncreativity retreat at Spirit Rock Meditation Center in Marin, and one of the teachers raised a\npoint that really stuck with me. We seem to have so many options now, with endless apps and\ngadgets at our fingertips. However, the teacher said, all of those things are part of a \"menu\"\nthat offers us a large - but limited and prescribed - set of choices. What's most precious, most\noverlooked, and most worth seeking out is what's not on the menu, what we find or create for\nourselves beyond the list of choices - like chalk maps and potions whose recipes only my\nfriends and I know. For me, Jackson Park as a wide, green, some-might-say plain open space\nis the world beyond the menu, a world that we can make our own, a world in which children\ndon't automatically find themselves climbing on a play structure made for them by adults but\nrather create a different play structure every day, every minute - one that is constantly in flux,\na marvelous combination of the natural world and their own awesome imaginations.\nI hope that the children of this neighborhood will continue to have the same opportunities I\nhad to use their inborn creativity to forge bonds with each other, with the natural world, and\nwith their future selves, who - if my own experience is anything to go by -will treasure the\nprecious memories of the time when their friends wielded lightsabers and wizards hid behind\ntrees.\nSincerely,\nClaire Mathieson", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 70, "text": "From:\nMontgomery, Angelina\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nRe: Jackson Park\nDate:\nThursday, September 12, 2019 9:47:58 AM\nAttachments:\nimage001.png\nimage003.png\n***\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. ***\nHi Amy,\nI am unable to attend the meeting tonight and wanted to send my response to you directly. I have a\nlittle 2 year old and am an Alameda resident. We've owned our home in Alameda for a few years\nand have been renters here for years. I would like to support the city to build the play area at\nJackson Park. As a new parent we're always looking for new places to take our child to play, and new\nways to engage with our community. Having this new small park would be an excellent way to build\ncommunity for families in Alameda, especially at Jackson Park!\nThanks for your time and consideration.\nAngelina Montgomery, MPH\nHelp Me Grow Prevention Manager\nFirst 5 Alameda County\n1115 Atlantic Ave, Alameda, CA 94501\n510-227-6943\nangel.montgomery@first5alameda.org\nww.First5Alameda.org\nFIRST5\nALAMEDA\nCOUNTY\nNewsletter\nAlameda\nlorg\nCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information for use only by the\nintended recipients. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any person, other than the intended recipients is strictly prohibited and\nmay be subject to civil action and/or penalties. If you receive this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail or by\ntelephone and delete the transmission. Thank you.", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 69, "text": "From:\nSean P. Scanlon\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nJackson Park Playground\nDate:\nMonday, September 9, 2019 7:32:33 AM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. ***\nHi Amy --\nI am unable to attend the Recreation and Park Commission's meeting on Thursday regarding the\nproposed Jackson Park playground, but would like to put forward my support for the Commission to hire a\nlandscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual designs for a small gathering space/natural play area.\nThank you for all of your thoughtful attention to this potential project.\nRegards,\nSean Scanlon\n943 Park St.", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 68, "text": "From:\nJennifer Zimmermann\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nJackson park playground\nDate:\nMonday, September 9, 2019 8:48:26 PM\n*** CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open\nattachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any\nquestions.\n***\nHi Amy,\nI am a local alameda resident with a three year old. I wanted to reach out because I understand from Ron Limoges\nthe last meeting there was opposition to the proposed park.\nI have been unable to attend any meetings due to work and lack of baby sitters but I fully support the need for some\ntype of playground at Jackson park.\nI understand the next step should be hiring a landscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual designs so we end up with\na beautiful functional play space.\nPlease ensure this is moved forward\nWe appreciate the work\nJennifer, Jethro and Jax Zimmermann", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 67, "text": "From:\nNalani N\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nJackson Park Playground\nDate:\nSunday, September 8, 2019 10:36:34 PM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions.\n***\nDear Amy.\nI'm writing because 'm hoping to see the Commissioners support hiring a landscape\narchitect to create 2-3 conceptual designs SO we end up with a beautiful functional play\nspace at Jackson Park. Every time l' m at Jackson Park I think it's such a pity there isn't\na\nplayground. the park has SO much unrealized potential as a public space.\nThank you!\nNalani Warde", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 66, "text": "From:\nKate Fayngersh\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nJackson Park Playground\nDate:\nMonday, September 9, 2019 12:44:14 AM\n*** CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open\nattachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any\nquestions. ***\nHi Amy,\nMy family and I recently purchased a home in Alameda, one block away from the beautiful Jackson Park. I am\nwriting to you in support of the proposed playground, since I have two small children and attending support\nmeetings in person is difficult due to the timing happening during or after bedtime.\nI would like to see the Commissioners' support hiring a landscape architect to create a couple of designs so we can\nend up with a beautiful and functional play space at Jackson Park that the entire community can agree upon. At the\nlast meeting, the concept designs that were shared were beautiful, natural, and a tasteful size that took into account\nthe size of the park without creating an eye sore or attracting people who would drive/park cars in the area. Such a\nplay area would be wonderful and even those opposed recognized that something like that would be tasteful and\nagreeable.\nPlease let me know if you have any questions or if I can reach out to anyone else to offer support for this effort.\nI appreciate your help with this!\nKate Fayngersh\n415-902-6446", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 65, "text": "From:\nLouise Van Geffen\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nFwd: Jackson Park meeting this evening\nDate:\nThursday, September 12, 2019 9:33:00 AM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. ***\nDear Amy,\nI will be unable to attend the hearing tomorrow night, however I would like to voice my\nsupport for a Jackson Park play-space.\nMy family and I have lived on Park Avenue in Alameda for 7 years. We always thought that\nJackson Park was a picturesque looking place with a fine gazebo, but rarely had ever seen\nanyone put the space to any good use. To be honest, we mostly have just seen commuters\nwaiting for buses there, teenage kids fighting after high school gets out and inebriated people\npassed out on the lawn.\nNow that we have small children and frequent other parks across the Island, it seems even\nmore of a shame that there's no dedicated area for young kids to play in. There are even signs\nup that say that bike riding in the park is not allowed. I think it's reasonable to think that the\nentire community could benefit from encouraging more walkable options for families with\nyoung children. Many of the homes in the area lack any real back yards to play in or are suited\nto outdoor play.\nWe'd like to see the Commissioners support hiring a landscape architect to create 2-3\nconceptual designs for Jackson Park. We believe that we could end up with a beautiful\nfunctional play space there. I fear that many of us in our community are working parents of\nyoung children and are unable to turn up at these hearings. It's easy for us to be under\nrepresented especially given the times allotted for meetings on school nights.\nJackson Park is not the center piece of private, gated community. The park deserves to be\nmore than a publicly funded and maintained front yard for houses along Park Ave. It's\nsupposed to be a space for all of us to share.\nWe hope you support our neighborhood families and give us a chance to live and play closely\nwith our neighbors.\nThanks for your consideration.\nLouise Van Geffen", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 64, "text": "From:\nDianne Woon\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nJackson Park play structure\nDate:\nTuesday, September 10, 2019 7:46:24 PM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions.\nHi, Amy,\nSince both me and my husband have to attend a school function for our daughter, we won't be\nable to attend September 12 meeting. But we would like to express that we do not support\nbuilding any play structure in Jackson Park. When we moved here, our children were small and\nthey were able to enjoy using their own creativity to play at the park. Whenever we felt that it is\nneeded, we will take them to other close by park with play structure. I have been a stay home\nmom and a working mom full time as we raise our kids.\nAlso, since the park is so close to Encinal, it is a high risk to little ones and if you put a fence\naround the play structure, it will completely ruin the natural decor as we have been provided by\nthe mother nature.\nLast but not least, we find that any structure is a natural attractive to people to hang out especially\ndusk and after. Most people who support the play structure lives 1-2 blocks away from it,\ntherefore they never have to deal with calling APD as there are people gathering when they\nshould not already. Play structure will make it even easier, just like the bench at the end of the\npark, because they will have a place to rest and hang out and play.\nTherefore, we respectually oppose to have any play structure on Jackson Park. Instead, we\nrespectfully request to have the sidewalks around the park to be paved so there is no tripping\nhazarad.\nThanks,\nJason & Dianne Woon\n1254 Park Ave", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 63, "text": "From:\nKaren Larsen\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nJackson Park\nDate:\nThursday, September 12, 2019 10:14:32 AM\n*** CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open\nattachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any\nquestions. ***\nHello Amy,\nI hope to be able to attend the meeting tonight and add my opposition to adding a playground\nJackson Park.\nBefore moving forward with adding a playground I think it is important to keep the commitment made many years\nago to spend money on repair and upkeep. It is particularly important to have a long range plan to replace trees with\nfinite lives. I am afraid there will eventually be a wholesale removal of trees changing the character and object of the\nPark.\nI know the funds slated for the play area do not come from the maintenance budget. All the more reason for those\nwho have been waiting for appropriate upkeep and repair to be upset with the playground decision.\nI sent an email in early July to your department asking when the giant stump left after the latest tree was taken down\nwould be removed and replaced. Since there was a sign placed by ARPD on the stump advising that this was going\nto happen I wanted to know when. I did not receive a reply.\nI was there the day an ARPD employee dropped by the Park, met a fellow, and pointed to the tree that was\nsubsequently removed. No notice was given to anyone. On the same day the tree was removed. While the tree may\nhave needed to be removed, it was in the same condition on that day as it had been for years.\nI hope you will forgive my cynicism, but I think that the tree was removed to make way for a play area about which\nno appropriate public input effort was undertaken.\nI do understand that parents want to have areas for their children to play. Jackson Park is already being used for that\npurpose. There just aren't play structures.\nIn an earlier email to you I suggested that a ring of benches might be appropriate. Parents could watch the children\nand get to know one another.\nThank you for your time and any effort you undertake to insure that money is directed appropriately.\nBest Regards\nKaren Larsen\n1206 Park Avenue.\nSent from my iPhone", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 62, "text": "From:\nHarrison Riley\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nJackson Park\nDate:\nMonday, September 9, 2019 10:09:04 AM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions.\nHi Amy,\nI'd like to see the Commissioners support hiring a landscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual\ndesigns so we end up with a beautiful functional play space at Jackson Park.\nThanks,\nHarrison", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 61, "text": "From:\nCassandra Cook\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nJackson Park proposal\nDate:\nWednesday, September 11, 2019 7:16:18 PM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions.\n***\nHi Amy,\nMy name is Cassandra Lee, a mother of two and resident of Alameda. I am writing in regards to the\nproposed play area for Jackson Park. I understand that there has been opposition to the park and wanted\nto voice my opinion and wholehearted approval ahead of the City Hall discussion. Unfortunately, due to\nthe logistics of having two young children, it is difficult for me attend the meetings on the park proposal.\nWhen I heard that there was a possibility of a new play structure for my children, and in such close\nproximity to our home and children's day care facility, my family and I were beyond elated. The parks that\nare close by are often crowded and I know that I speak for several families when I say that a new play\narea would be a godsend. I am in a Facebook community for 2016 (457 members) and 2018\n(541 members) mothers and we are always looking for places to bring our children.\nI understand that there are two options for building a new structure- preassembled or hiring an architect.\nOf course, I believe hiring an architect would increase the value of the park - in attendance and\naesthetics, much like the grandeur of the new Sweeney Open Space. Nonetheless, I honestly would be\ngrateful for any play structure! My specific request would be to include a structure accessible for younger\nchildren.\nSince I have moved to Alameda, nearly 10 years ago, the city has exploded with new life. I see more and\nmore young families moving here and growing. I know that this park would be a gift that would keep\ngiving to the community for generations to come.\nThank you for reviewing and considering the proposal for the park, and for reading my email.\nBest,\nCassandra\nThe Lee Family", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 60, "text": "From:\nRachel Wilson\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nIn support of a playground at Jackson Park\nDate:\nMonday, September 9, 2019 1:34:49 PM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions.\nDear Ms. Wooldridge,\nI would like to see the Commissioners support hiring a landscape architect to create 2-3\nconceptual designs so we end up with a beautiful functional play space at Jackson Park.\nMy kids and I regularly walk and bike to the Park Street/Park Avenue area from our house on\nthe East End. I know my kids would really enjoy a play area that makes Jackson Park feel\nmore friendly to children.\nThank you,\nRachel Wilson\n1205 Post St, Alameda, CA 94501", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 59, "text": "From:\nbmathieson@aol.com\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nCc:\nklofkorn@comcast.net; dnowi@comcast.net\nSubject:\nFor Recreation and Park Commissioners -- September 12 Agenda Item 7c\nDate:\nMonday, September 9, 2019 7:29:27 AM\nAttachments:\nCompilation of opposition comments 8-22-2019.pc\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. ***\nHonorable Chair and Members of the Recreation and Park Commission:\nI am a neighbor of Jackson Park and am looking forward to participating in your September 12, 2019,\nmeeting. I appreciate the conclusion in the staff report that states, \"Overall, it was clear that a playground\nis not necessary to fulfill the requested needs but rather a small natural play area and/or gathering space\nfor families would suffice.\"\nI would like to provide some additional context to the request for a playground in Jackson Park. Your May\n9, 2019, recommendation to the City Council that a playground be constructed in Jackson Park was\nbased on misleading information. The two Alameda residents who spoke at your May 9 meeting live in a\nneighborhood a few blocks from Jackson Park. One of them had conducted an online survey to gauge\ninterest in a playground at the park and told you that the survey respondents were all in favor of a\nplayground. That was not true; either the compilation of the survey results was flawed, or the speaker\ninaccurately summarized the results.\nThe input provided at the July 30, 2019, Community Meeting, which at least two of you kindly attended,\nincluded vast opposition to a playground by people who identified themselves as living in the immediate\nneighborhood of the park. In contrast, very few of the playground proponents identified where they live.\nUnfortunately, the sign-in sheet for the meeting included only names and e-mail addresses, with no\nrecord of where the meeting attendees live.\nSpeakers who stated that the closest playgrounds are a mile away are mistaken. Edison School, whose\nlarge, modern toddler and big-kid play structures are accessible to the public during non-school hours, is\n0.6 mile from Jackson Park and 0.4 mile (an 8-minute walk) from the Crist Street homes of many of the\npro-playground speakers. Lincoln Park is 0.7 mile from their homes, and Krusi Park is 0.8 mile from their\nhomes. Those three existing playgrounds provide ample opportunities for climbing, swinging, and sliding\non conventional play structures in a fenced environment.\nThe attached document is a compilation of comments that various Jackson Park neighbors emailed me\nabout the proposal for a playground in the park. They provide more detail about neighborhood concerns\nthan could be included in the compilation of input from the July 30 Community Meeting.\nI look forward to hearing the discussion at your meeting this Thursday. I hope that your recommendation\nwill be compatible with Jackson Park's uniquely valuable character as a place of peaceful respite, for all\nAlameda children and adults, from the hectic aspects of urban life.\nSincerely,\nBetsy (and Scott) Mathieson\n1185 Park Avenue\n(510)523-5852", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 58, "text": "From:\nJaclyn Karnowski\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nJackson park for kids!!\nDate:\nThursday, September 12, 2019 9:50:06 AM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. ***\nHello,\nPlease note my support for a simple kids play structure at Jackson Park.\nI'm all for a simple climb / swing structure. Please hire an architect and let's get this thing\ngoing!\nI know it will reduce the drug activity in the park, it'll be a great reason to actually open and\nuse the bathroom that exists. And, it' Il be a catalyst for improving the walkway cement that is\nnow quite dangerous for anyone walking the path.\nThanks!\nJaclyn Karnowski\n2422 Webb Ave. Alameda\nJaclyn Karnowski\nConsultant | Educator\n810.444.0063 I jaclyn.karnowski@gmail.com\nbeautycounter.com/jaclynkarnowski\nOur mission is to get safer products in the hands of everyone.", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 57, "text": "From:\nKaty Dreyfuss\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nIn Support of a Play Space at Jackson Park\nDate:\nTuesday, September 10, 2019 1:01:36 PM\nAttachments:\nATT00001.htm\nsig\nATT00002.htm\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. ***\nHi Amy,\nMy name is Katy Nasitka and I am an Alameda resident who lives .4 miles from\nJackson Park. My kids are 7 and 10 years old. We often bike to Park Street and to\nfriends' houses near Jackson Park. We enjoy biking under the trees through the\npark's open space. We would enjoy the park even more with a play space specifically\ndesigned for young children. I hope you will consider supporting the hire of a\nlandscape architect who would create conceptual designs for a play space at Jackson\nPark.\nBest,\nKaty Nasitka", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 56, "text": "From:\nScott Grieder\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nCc:\nCharlise Tiee\nSubject:\nIn support of a Jackson Park functional play-space\nDate:\nWednesday, September 11, 2019 9:10:05 PM\n*** CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open\nattachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any\nquestions. ***\nHello Amy,\nAs I will be unable to attend the hearing tomorrow night, I am writing you in support of a Jackson Park play-space.\nMy wife and I have lived in Alameda for over 10 years on Crist St. We always thought that Jackson Park was a\npicturesque looking place with a fine gazebo, but rarely had ever seen anyone put the space to any good use. To be\nhonest, we mostly have just seen commuters waiting for buses there, teenage kids fighting after high school gets out\nand inebriated people passed out on the lawn.\nNow that we have small children and frequent other parks across the Island, it seems even more of a shame that\nthere's no dedicated area for young kids to play in. There are even signs up that say that bike riding in the park is not\nallowed. I think it's reasonable to think that the entire community could benefit from encouraging more walkable\noptions for families with young children. Many of the homes in the area lack any real back yards to play in or are\nsuited to outdoor play.\nWe'd like to see the Commissioners support hiring a landscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual designs for Jackson\nPark. We believe that we could end up with a beautiful functional play space there. I fear that many of us in our\ncommunity are working parents of young children and are unable to turn up at these hearings. It's easy for us to be\nunder represented especially given the times allotted for meetings on school nights.\nJackson Park is not the center piece of private, gated community. The park deserves to be more than a publicly\nfunded and maintained front yard for houses along Park Ave. It's supposed to be a space for all of us to share.\nWe hope you support our neighborhood families and give us a chance to live and play closely with our neighbors.\nThanks for your consideration.\nSincerely,\nScott Grieder\n2508 Crist St", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 55, "text": "From:\nBobbie V Centurion\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nJackson Pak\nDate:\nThursday, September 12, 2019 1:00:41 PM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions.\n***\nDear Amy,\nI\nam unable to be at the meeting, but would like to share some thoughts about play structures\nto be considered for Jackson Park.\nI am not in favor of installing any kind of play structure in Jackson Park.\nI have lived at the corner of Park Ave. and San Jose for almost 30 years. I raised three\ndaughters here and we enjoyed the park a lot.\nI appreciate the open free-form play that I see so often in the park. Our park, the way it\ncurrently is, encourages children to use their imaginations in wonderful ways. Any group of\nparents, or teachers can use the park in an abundance of creative ways.\nI also have concerns about our beautiful trees. A friend that lives near Longfellow Park told\nme that they lost a one hundred year old magnolia recently., and that part of the reason was the\nroots of the tree were negatively impacted by the compacted soil of a play structure on top of\nthem.\nAlso, I am concerned that a play structure would invite more cars into the area. Parking is a\nconstant issue for this neighborhood.\nI would like to see Park and Rec funding go towards replacing the dangerous paths and\nimproved lawn maintenance which keeps the grass from growing onto the paths.\nThank you for considering my ideas, and thank you for serving in public office.\nSincerely,\nBobbie V. Centurion\n1201 Park Avenue\nAlameda, CA 94501\n(510) 865-9945", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 54, "text": "From:\nJessica\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nJackson park\nDate:\nThursday, September 12, 2019 5:01:19 PM\n*** CAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not click links or open\nattachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact the Help Desk with any\nquestions.\nHi Amy,\nI'm unable to attend tonight's city council meeting because it conflicts with my toddler's bedtime but I am emailing\nto express my support for building a small natural playground at Jackson park. I was at the meeting held at the park\nabout a month ago and wish I was able to attend this meeting.\nI would like to see the Commissioners support hiring a landscape architect to create 2-3 conceptual designs to help\ncreate a beautiful functional play space at Jackson Park.\nThank you for considering this feedback from me and my 22 month old!\nBest,\nJessica\nSent from my iPhone", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 53, "text": "From:\nErin Zajonc\nTo:\nAmy Wooldridge\nSubject:\nSupport for Jackson Park Play Space\nDate:\nThursday, September 12, 2019 2:54:32 PM\nCAUTION: This email message is coming from a non-City email address. Do not\nclick links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is\nsafe. Please contact the Help Desk with any questions. ***\nDear Amy,\nI wanted to share with you my support for a play space at Jackson Park. My family loves\ndowntown and think that a nearby play space would make it even better.\nNot only will it provide a space for children to run around and socialize but it will also build\ncommunity and improve Jackson Park. One time, my husband went to Jackson park for my\nson to run around - but found it less inviting with people loitering for lack of a better word.\nLikewise, If there were a play space close to downtown, my family and I would eat and shop\nthere more often because we would have a space for our son to burn off some energy before\nand/or after.\nWe understand that there are fiscal considerations and therefore support the Commissioners to\nget conceptual designs for the potential play space.\nThank you for your time,\nErin Fong-Zajonc", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 52, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 51, "text": "(21-464) Consider Adoption of Resolution Supporting the Goal of Reaching 100% Zero\nEmission Vehicle Sales in California by 2030. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft) Not heard.\n(21-465) Considering Having an Introduction and Update from the New Police Chief\nregarding Strategies to Address Crimes. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-466) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-467) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational\nVehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-468) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate\nHomeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property\nManagement. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNot heard.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:01\na.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n28\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 51, "text": "Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 4:33:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time\nSubject: Jackson Park playground proposal\nDate:\nSunday, July 21, 2019 at 4:32:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time\nFrom:\nGary Cates (sent by gary cates <glcbfd1967@gmail.com>)\nTo:\nmezzyashcraft@alameda.gov,awooldridge@alameda.gov\nCC:\njacksonparkwatch@googlegroups.com\nBCC:\nSarah Foltz, mary ann cates, gary cates\nDear Mayor Ashcraft and Ms. Wooldridge,\nWe purchased our home at 1250 Park Avenue in April of 1974. We raised two children here and now\nhave two teenage grandchildren all of whom spent many hours enjoying the wonders of our\nbeautiful Jackson park.\nThey were allowed to use their imagination to enjoy what little green space we have in a very urban\nsetting. The park was never intended to include a playground. This became evident when the private\nproperties owned by the residents of Park Avenue were deeded to the City for the purpose of\nbuilding what would become Alameda's first Park.\nFor example, a fire station was once proposed for much of the space and rejected once restrictions\noutlined in the property transfer agreement were revealed. Because of the park's proximity to a\ncommercial district and Alameda High School the park and those of us who share the area are often\nexposed to negative conditions such various types of litter, including discarded food packaging, drug\nparaphernalia and liquor bottles and the noise of late night partying. The addition of a playground\ncould serve as a magnet for many unauthorized activities that would only exacerbate these\nproblems.\nThe park was conceived as a \"landscape promenade\" that did not incorporate concepts of play and\nrecreation such as playgrounds and sports fields. These elements can be found in later developed\nparks such as Lincoln and Washington and others.\nThe historic nature of the creation of the park and the wishes of the original grantors must be\nrespected. We fear that we may be living in a time where the concept of respect for history is being\neroded.\nWe understand and respect those who feel that a playground would provide improvements to our\npark. However in light of what is stated above we must oppose this proposal.\nSincerely,\nMary Ann and Gary Cates\n1250 Park Ave\nPage 1 of 1", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 50, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has an issue with the September 22nd\nmeeting date; the date is posed for a League of California Cities conference in\nSacramento and she plans to attend; noted September 14th is not a holiday; expressed\nsupport for the meeting dates being September 1st and 14th\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she has a work commitment on September 14th; schedules\nare created far in advance due to meeting dates; inquired whether there has been an\ninstance where Christmas has landed on a scheduled Council meeting.\nThe City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the date is a holiday where City Hall is\nclosed and meetings would not be scheduled.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the current September meeting\ndates are the 1st and the 15th\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the dates had been adopted in\nJanuary; noted the proposed dates revert back to the original meeting schedule; stated\na Transportation Commission meeting is scheduled for September 22nd\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her preference is to keep the dates already\nvoted on by Council which would be September 1st and 15th\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has trouble selecting one religion to move Council\nmeetings for; a survey should be provided through the Social Services Human Relations\nBoard (SSHRB); there are many different dates which are important to different religious\ngroups; Council should not favor one religion over another; expressed support for\nsticking to the regular schedule of the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month; SSHRB is\nlikely the most appropriate Board for the matter.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the matter to July 20, 2021 at 6:59\np.m.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNot heard.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNot heard.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n27\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 50, "text": "Lisa Klofkorn East End Zone\nI have lived in a house facing Jackson Park for twenty years. I do not\nnormally have objections to adding playgrounds to existing parks, however.\nin regards to Jackson Park I have a few concerns.\nFirst, when this park underwent renovations in 2001, the proposed\nrenovation included two phases. Phase one, including the restoration of the\nbandstand, was completed. It's my understanding that phase two, including\nmuch needed improvements to pathways, lighting, and such, was never\ndone due to budgetary constraints. These improvements are still very much\nneeded in this park. How can the expense of adding a playground be\njustified when much needed park improvements have not been\nimplemented?\nSecondly, if a playground is added would a fence surrounding this\nplayground be necessary due to safety concerns, because of the close\nproximity of Park Avenue on both the east and west sides of the park? If a\nfence is needed I have worries this may negatively impact the beauty and\nopenness of the park. This park is very narrow by design and the space\nmay not lend itself well to the addition of a fenced off area within its\nboundaries.\n21 Mar\nReply\n6\nMonique Lopez. East End Zone\nV\nNo thank you\n22 Mar Thank Reply\n1", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 49, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated public comment has raised the issue of\nwhether or not the contract is similar to other City staff; her understanding is that the\ncontract is similar; requested clarification for the contract details.\nThe Human Resources Director stated the provisions in the City Attorney's contract\nallow for employees to cash out vacation, up to two weeks, after being with the City for\n15 years; not all employees have the provision; the provision is negotiated; vacation\naccruals are different based on years of service; the accruals allowed are higher than\nother City employees however, the amount is nothing higher than seen at other\norganizations.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any other City employees have the\nsame level of vacation cash-out.\nThe Human Resources Director responded other employees have the 80 hours of cash-\nout option after 15 years of service.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the employment agreement.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-463) Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution Nos. 15728 and 15739\nAmending the 2021 Regular City Council Meeting Dates. [Continued to 7/20 at 6:59\np.m.]\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated moving the dates back would be problematic;\nexpressed support for the September meeting dates being the 8th and the 22nd\nMayor Ezzy Aschraft requested clarification on selecting certain religious holidays to re-\nschedule.\nThe City Attorney stated Council has a wide range of discretion on when to meet;\nshould Council choose to meet, the reasons would not be due to favoring one religion\nover another.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated no meetings are scheduled for December 25th which\nis a Christian holiday; Council can make a determination that meetings can be moved\nbased on conflicts for a large portion of the community; expressed support for not\nmoving the Council meeting dates back; stated that he would like the dates to be\nSeptember 8th and 22nd to ensure no conflict.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n26\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 49, "text": "Nextdoor Jackson Park Playground Survey\nMarch 2019\nExamples of comments posted to this survey that were in oppositon to\nhaving a playground built in Jackson Park.\n\"\nMonica LeMaster East End Zone\nI'm very fond of the gorgeous trees and open green space, so I am against\nlosing any of the trees(-ever if they're not intentionally cut, could their\nroots get unintentionally damaged through construction?). I personally don't\nthink of the park as underutilized, as I've found things to do with my kids\nthere for the last 12 years. Though in those 12 years, I've also wished for\na\nplayground from time to time, especially when I have toddler in the house:\nI've learned to just bring a ball and enjoy the space as is though-building -\nfairy houses with the sticks is another favorite activity. I'm open to hearing\nmore about the idea though. I know there are a lot of families with young\nchildren in this neighborhood, some new and some old, and I would love to\nmeet them at a local, public playground.\nEdited 22 Mar\nThank\nReply\n6\nTerri Ogden, East End Zone\nT\nI am a devoted supporter of recreation in Alameda, having worked at the\nparks and serving on the recreation commission. That being said, I am\nvery much devoted to free play instead of always structuring children's play\ntime. My aunt used to live on Park Avenue and I can remember having\nsome awesome fun running around the park with my cousins playing for\nhours without the need for playground equipment. There is a lot to be said\nfor the imagination.\n22 Mar\nThank\nReply\n4\nMimi Laubach Whale's Eye\nI like Jackson Park as it is. I think ARPD could do more with the park-\nmaybe Sunday afternoon concerts in the bandstand, upgrade the pathways\nand add flower beds in areas. Most of our city parks have play structures\nalready and we have few \"green\" parks where we can enjoy simple nature\nin Alameda.\n28 Mar\nThank\nReply\n:\n3", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 48, "text": "support for the restaurant and long-term tenants are good for the City; she feels as\nthough she does not have a choice in the matter; expressed support for an operator that\nis focused on golfing; stated Greenway Golf is not set up to be a restauranteur; she\nhopes for a golf course operator that is willing to honor working together with Jim's on\nthe Course; expressed support for the motion; expressed concern for Greenway Golf as\nan operator; stated that she will be looking at Greenway Golf closely moving forward;\nshe has heard complaints about the golf course; it is important that both parties be held\nto honor the original agreement as much as possible; she expects the operator to be\ngood within the community.\nOn the call for the questions, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCONSENT CALENDAR (CONTINUED)\n(21-462) Recommendation to Approve Amended Employment Agreement for the City\nAttorney.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 48, "text": "who live in my old neighborhood on and near Crist Street. Those that spoke\nprimarily in opposition to having the playground were residents living in the\nimmediate vicinity of the park, residents living within the 300' radius the city\ndesignates as the neighborhood needing to give approval. So, not all who spoke\nwere from the immediate neighborhood (within the 300' radius), and many were\nfrom outside the immediate neighborhood, thus giving an inaccurate appraisal of\nthe situation. I have printed out an updated map of Jackson Park and its\nsurrounding residential neighborhood showing those residences opposed to having\na playground built in the park. This map illustrates the overwhelming opposition\nthis neighborhood has to the addition of a playground in Jackson Park.\nI addition I am including a copy of the Conceptual Master Plan of Jackson Park,\ndrawn up twenty years ago, in hopes that the city would see fit to implement some\nof the improvements included in this plan, as well as seeing to much needed\ndeferred maintenance this park sorely needs.", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 47, "text": "will continue attempting to sell the tent; Mr. Geanekos might not be able to recoup the\ncosts.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what will happen should the costs be able to be\nrecovered.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded Council may request staff to draft a\nprovision to stagger the rent recovery provision outlined in option B should Jims on the\nCourse be able to sell back the event tent.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for a provision to stagger rent recovery.\nExpressed support for the third amendment; stated that he is excited to continue\npartnering with the City to improve the golf course; city staff, Jim's on the Course and\nGreenway Golf have worked hard to find a path forward that works for all parties; he\nand Mr. Geanekos are committed to working together in a manner which is mutually\nbeneficial and in turn, benefits the City; having more food and beverage options at the\ncourse will bring more patrons thus increasing business for both Greenway Golf and\nJim's on the Course; having expanded offerings will provide an opportunity to bring in\nother Alameda food vendors during tournaments; the amendment will allow Greenway\nGolf to bring larger tournaments to Corica Park; outlined a ranking of 12th best course\nprovided by Golf Magazine; discussed the annual golf tournament; stated having more\nchoices at Corica Park will enable the annual tournament to come home to the City's\ngolf course; discussed letters of support; stated that he hopes the amendment will allow\nGreenway Golf to host bigger tournaments in the coming years; urged Council support\nthe amendment: Umesh Patel, Greenway Golf.\nDiscussed operations of locations; stated many first job opportunities are provided at\nJim's; the golf course has undergone many transformations since 2006 and the only\nstable factor has been Jim's on the Course; prior to 2006, a food and beverage cart\nprovided limited service to golfers only; he has since invested large sums of money to\nimprove kitchen facilities and dining areas; the full service restaurant can serve\nhundreds of customers per day; the revenues paid to the City since 2006 have\nquadrupled to roughly $100,000 per year; Jim's has been a stable revenue stream to\nthe City with zero City investment; Jim's has done everything in its power to fulfil\ncontractual obligations to the City related to the events center; the City, Greenway Golf\nand Jim's have come to an agreement to bring closure to the matter; Jim's has agreed\nto relinquish a portion of the food and beverage exclusivity in exchange for contractual\nstability and needed rent relief; urged Council bring the chapter to a final closure, and\nvote for option B; discussed the event tent structure: Tom Geanekos, Jim's on the\nCourse.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the matter; stated the Golf Commission had unanimously\nsupported option B.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of accepting option B for both\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2021-03-11", "page": 47, "text": "tennis courts. Harbor Bay Club also has 4 Pickleball courts. Can ARPD work with HBC and make an\narrangement with them for the public to use their Pickleball courts in exchange for St. Joe's using public\ntennis courts?\nAt Lincoln Park on March 12th at 11:30 a.m., there were 21 Pickleball players. As I was sitting there\nwaiting for a court, I noticed that the basketball court and thought that maybe that could be an option\nfor the rec and park to look at to build more Pickleball courts. The ground structure is already in place\nand may be easy to convert over to courts as 8 new basketball courts were built at Washington Park. On\nmy way home, I drove by Krusi Park and all 3 tennis courts were empty.\nWhat about Estuary Park, where the new turf field was built. Can ARPD work with the East Bay Regional\nParks and see if there is land that they can add Pickleball courts?\nI do not support a reservation system to use courts for the tennis and/or Pickleball for local\nresidents. The courts are public land and should be used by the public for free as we pay property tax to\nthe City of Alameda. This is a disadvantage to residence in Alameda who cannot \"pay to play\" the\ngames. We need to encourage people to exercise and enjoy the outdoors. Who will be monitoring the\ncourts to make sure people are using the reservation system correctly?\nI do not believe a GoFundMe or fundraisers to build Pickleball courts is ideal. Why should the citizens of\nAlameda, whom already pay property tax, contribute money to build Pickleball courts? We live in a\ncommunity, but not everyone in the community supports Pickleball and it appears that the only people\nwhom would contribute are the Pickleball players, which comes back to \"pay to play\" situation.\nYou all have a tough decision to make sure everyone in the community is happy and I praise you for the\nlong hours you put in for the community. It is not fair to put Pickleball courts in places without lights,\nbathrooms and drinking faucets, so the tennis community is happy. I hope you review some, or all of my\nsuggestions, when deciding what to do with the fast growing sport of Pickleball.\nHelen Simpson", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 47, "text": "I'm Lisa Klofkorn. I have lived across from Jackson Park for twenty years, and\nprevious to that lived for ten years in the neighborhood where many of the pro-\nplayground folks now reside. I raised my children in these two neighborhoods and\nI'm intimately familiar with both.\nA traditional playground, especially any structure that needs to be fenced in, doesn't\nfit into this narrow park, which was originally intended for passive recreation.\nOther factors that make this site a poor one for a playground include the busy\nstreets that surround the park on all sides, the poor condition of the existing trees\nthat may pose a hazard, and the lack of sufficient parking (as this is an extremely\nhigh density neighborhood with many multi-unit dwellings).\nI reviewed the video of your May 9 meeting. The social media surveys mentioned\ndid not ask respondents for their addresses, so it would not be possible to know if\nthe respondents were from the immediate area. The results stating that all\nrespondents were for having a playground built in Jackson Park were inaccurate, as\nI and others responded to the Nextdoor survey with our opposition and concerns,\nbut these comments were not referenced in the May 9 meeting. I'm attaching a few\nof these responses in the packet I'm leaving with you tonight.\nIn Ms. Wooldridge's report on the July 30 meeting in Jackson Park, which I attended,\nshe comments that of those who voiced opinions about half were for the playground\nand half were opposed. The sign-in sheet did not ask for the addresses of those in\nattendance. After that meeting I wrote to Ms. Wooldridge to clarify what was meant\nby \"neighborhood\" in reference to the city council's stipulation that the playground\nwas \"contingent upon neighborhood approval\". She wrote back that the city\ngenerally uses the standard of 300' from any given project. At the July 30 meeting it\nwas apparent that several of the people voicing their approval of the proposed\nplayground were from areas outside the immediate neighborhood, including those", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 46, "text": "its regulatory and proprietary capacities. This Third Amendment shall not be construed\nto limit the City's future discretion to approve, conditionally approve, or deny such uses;\"\nstated the language indicates Council will review items as they arise.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the language is to be included in the settlement\nagreement.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded the language will be inserted as section 14.\nThe City Attorney stated Councilmember Daysog is recommending an additional\nprovision to the third amendment to Greenway Golf lease.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the recommended language has been discussed\nwith Greenway Golf, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification on the claim against the City\nfrom Greenway Golf; stated that she would like to know the monetary risk to those\nnamed in the claim.\nThe City Attorney stated the claim in a nutshell states that Greenway Golf has alleged\nJim's on the Course has breached its obligations to build an event center, and that the\nCity has been complicit in the breach with Greenway Golf and has incurred damages in\nthe range of tens of millions of dollars.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the amount of the claim is tens of millions of\ndollars; inquired whether Jim's on the Course has filed a claim against the City of\nAlameda, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the response has confirmed that Greenway\nGolf has filed a claim for tens of millions of dollars against the City and Jims on the\nCourse; noted Jims on the Course has not filed a claim against the City.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the proposed location of the referenced restaurant at the\ngolf course.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the location has yet to be determined;\nstated there are a number of City requirements to be worked through on Greenway\nGolf's part, including Gold Commission, Planning Board and City Council.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the event center tent could be sold at a\nreasonable price; stated there is a rent structure which allows the $315,000 losses to be\nwhole again; she wants to be fair however, she does not want the City to be providing\nfinancial windfall.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded sale of the tent has been attempted;\nstated the pandemic has created additional issues; she is confident Mr. Tom Geanekos\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2021-03-11", "page": 46, "text": "From: Helen Simpson [mailto:HSimpson@MPBF.com\nSent: Friday, March 12, 2021 2:20 PM\nTo: ARPD <ARPD@alamedaca.gov>\nSubject: [EXTERNAL] ARPD's Meeting on March 11, 2021\nDear Commissioners of Alameda Recreation and Parks Department.\nThank you all for your time in working with the Pickleball community in finding a location for new\nPickleball courts to be built.\nI watched the Zoom meeting on March 11th and found it interesting the different comments about\ntennis verses Pickleball. Pickleball is not for \"old, retired tennis players\" as referred to by some of the\nspeakers. One speaker mentioned that Pickleball players could use \"masking tape\" to make our lines to\nplay on tennis courts, which would not work because the nets are not the same size. I play Pickleball\nwith a group of players from the ages of 25 - 75. I have never played tennis because I always felt it was\na very competitive sport (and too quiet), where Pickleball is not. I am not a \"pandemic\" Pickleball player\neither, as some speakers identified Pickleball players to be. I feel if there were more Pickleball courts in\nAlameda, more people would play. There are high schools around the country that now have Pickleball\nteams.\nDuring the presentation, it appears there are 6 tennis courts at Washington Park and 2 wall ball\ncourts. From some of the callers at the meeting, they made it sound like there were 4 tennis courts at\nWashington Park and by converting one to Pickleball, that would leave 3 tennis courts, which in fact, it\nwould be 5 tennis courts and 2 wall ball courts.\nThe perfect spot for Pickleball courts is Washington Park since it is in mid-town, easy access, away from\nhomes, close to soccer field, baseball field, basketball courts, dog park and tennis courts. It should be an\nall-around park for all to enjoy. Also, there are lights at Washington Park so Pickleball players can enjoy\nplaying in the evening.\nI heard at last night's meeting that tennis tournaments are held at Washington Park and 3 courts are\nused for tournaments. Lydecker and Krusi both have 3 courts, why can't they hold tournaments at those\nparks? Why only Washington Park? Have the people that run the tournaments contacted AUSD to use\nthe tennis courts at Alameda High School or contacted College of Alameda? Contacted HBC? Does\nARPD receive money for these tournaments?\nI also like the idea of courts near Hornet Field, but the only drawback is that Pickleball is played with a\nwhiffle ball and the Hornet Field gets really windy. Also, there are no lights at Hornet Field. As it was\nmentioned last night in the meeting, there is a chance that the courts on the base will not be\npermanent, so what happens if the courts are demolished in 2 to 3 years? What about upgrading the\ntwo tennis courts by Hornet Field to tennis courts in exchange for one tennis court at Washington Park\nto be converted to 4 Pickleball courts? A win-win for all.\nIt was mentioned that St. Joe's is using 3 tennis courts at Washington Park for its tennis team for\npractices, without being charged by ARPD. Harbor Bay Club (\"HBC\"), where they usually practice, is\nopen, and has been opened for tennis, since November 2020. Why is a private school using public\nproperty for a school team? St. Joe's uses College of Alameda for all other sports, baseball, soccer, track\nand College of Alameda has tennis courts. It is interesting that they are not using College of Alameda's", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 46, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 45, "text": "immediately be cut-off from a range of State funding sources; the funding applies to\ntransportation, open space, affordable housing and homeless project money; the City\nrelies on all the related funding which could be cut-off.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the due date, to which the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director responded January 2023.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated that he would like to come\nback to Council in the fall with projects related to the Housing Element; the projects may\nbe voted up or down; staff will be clear and inform Council of the projects in relation to\nthe Housing Element; the General Plan will be coming to Council in the fall; noted the\nGeneral Plan is designed to support a Housing Element however, the General Plan\ndoes not predetermine the RHNA allocation; stated the General Plan represents the\ncoming 20 years; noted three Housing Elements will occur in the General Plan time\nframe; the General Plan will allow decisions for multi-family overlay and densities; by\nthe end of the fall, staff will find out the RHNA allocation; he will continue to work with\nthe Planning Board and the community on the multi-family overlays and will return to\nCouncil for a study session style update report on the final RHNA allocation plans; the\nreport will come to Council between January and February providing time to continue\nworking; Council may provide feedback and fine tuning on the plan but will not need to\nmake a final determination.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for workshops taking place in different parts of\nthe City with access for all and for conducting walking tours; noted the matter will return\nin the future.\n(21-460) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police to Update the Existing\nAlameda Police Department Policy Manual to be Current with Existing Best Practices\nand Statutory Requirements. Not heard.\n(21-461) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Third Amendment to the Greenway Golf\nLease Agreement for Operation of the Corica Park Golf Complex. Introduced; and\n(21-461 A) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Third\nAmendment to the Jim's on the Course Concession Agreement for Food and Beverage\nServices at the Corica Park Golf Complex.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed concern for the reference to open-ended\nrestaurants; stated Council should consider language which places parameters\nensuring Council will always have the final say on restaurant numbers; expressed\nsupport for the language to state \"14. Reservation of City Rights: The additional uses\npotentially contemplated by this Third Amendment, including but not limited to snack\nshacks, take-out Food and Beverage Service facilities, new Golf Complex restaurants,\nand event center facilities, are each subject to future City review and approvals both in\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2021-03-11", "page": 45, "text": "From: Helen Simpson [mailto:HSimpson@MPBF.com\nSent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 5:00 PM\nTo: ARPD@alamedaca.gov\nSubject: ARPD's Meeting on March 11, 2021\nDear Commissioners of Alameda Recreation and Parks Department.\nI have recently picked up the fastest growing sport in the United States, Pickleball. I play Pickleball at\nLincoln Park on Mondays and Saturdays and I am truly enjoying the game and the people whom also\nplay. Everyone is so friendly and it really is a social sport. Pickleball is a healthy, inexpensive outdoor\nsport that anyone age can play and also any ability. The rules are easy (and not too many rules) and\neasy to pick up.\nThank you for considering converting a tennis court at Washington Park to 4 Pickleball\ncourts. Washington Park would be a great location since it is in central Alameda. If possible, I would\nlove to see more tennis courts, at different parks, converted to Pickleball courts. What about the old\ntennis court at Hornet Field? There are 23 tennis courts (including Alameda and Encinal High Schools)\nand four Pickleball courts.\nThe four courts at Lincoln Park are enjoyed by many and heavily used. On Saturday afternoons, there\nare anywhere between 25 and 35 players wanting to play between 3:00 and 5:00. With only four courts,\nthere is a lot of waiting around for a court to open up. Also, since there are no lights at Lincoln Park, the\ncourts close when the sun goes down, giving limited time to play.\nThank you for the opportunity to share my love of Pickleball and I truly support building more Pickleball\ncourts in the City of Alameda.\nSincerely,\nHelen Simpson\nAlameda Resident", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 45, "text": "PARK\nAVENUE\nWEST\nMagnolias (E)\nPark Sign\nNOTE\nCown\nLown\nVII\nPARK\nAVENUE\nERST\nPlenic Area\nElevated Two Ther Fountein With upper of Lower Coping\nSycamores ()\nMagnolias ()\nPergola's With Flowering Vine\nLow Boxwood Hedge\nSingle Species Bed With Seasonal Color\nPalms (E)\nPavers\nLarge Urns With Annual Color\nCirculer Bed\nVictorian Style Bench\nSingle Species Beds With Seasonal Color\nOrnamental 42\"Wroughe Iron Fence\nVictorian Style Trosh Receptacle\nDecomposed Granite Paving\nInterlocign Pavers\nStone Seat Well\nRestroom in style of Gasebo\nSlopad Circular Rjoben Beds\nDrinking Fountain\nPavers\nVictorion Style Light Peles\nSycamores (E)\nLinden Treas (2)\nPARK\nWEST\nRed Oaks ()\nAVENUE\nRedwoods (E)\nJACKSON PARK\nSensonal Flowering Strubbs Around Concrets Seat (\")\nWith Now Drining Fountain For Dags\nCONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN\nCity of Alameda\nAlameda, California\nFebruary 1997\njha\nLondange\nLave\n---\no\n10\n20\n40\n00 FEQT\nPolms (E)\nLow Boxwood Hedge\nMagnolias (E)\nPargola's With Flowering Vine\nsightly Mounded Rib6on Bed With Sensona a/ Color\nInterlocion Pavers\nPART\nAVENUE\nEAST\nOrnamental 42e Wrought Iron Fence\nStandard Roses 'With Flowering Groundcover\nDischied Accessible Victorian Stryle Gassbo", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 44, "text": "is provided; staff anticipates a series of meetings with Council over the following nine\nmonths; the process allows staff to keep moving and informing Council; emphasized the\nneed for smoothness at the end of the process.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Measure Z ballot measure elections results have been a\nresounding no; the campaign was not well-run and educating voters was not adequately\nperformed; expressed support for an informative public process; Council decided late in\nthe game to place the measure on the ballot; answers to public questions were not\ngiven enough of a chance; the City fell short in communicating and now has a second\nchance at bringing the public along; Council cannot pretend as though there is no\nhousing crisis; Council must solve housing problems realistically; expressed support for\nCouncil providing clear direction on what to include in the returning report; questioned\nthe matters which Council would like addressed.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he will need to know the final RHNA allocation\nbefore he signs off on the Housing Element and multi-family zoning strategies; he will\nneed to determine whether or not the allocation is fair to the island; the public and\nCouncil will need a thorough analysis regarding densities of new General Plan land use\ncategories and the relationship to multi-family overlays; he will find it difficult to support\nany kind of Housing Element or zoning overlay change should there be no reduction in\nthe RHNA allocation; the City is unique and is one of two California islands; the City\ncannot support any allocation near the 5,300 units; he will put out more of his thoughts\nbetween now and the returning report.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog prefers the matter not\nreturn to Council until after the November or December determination of the RHNA\nallocation, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella stated it makes sense to wait until the final RHNA allocation is\nprovided; there are a number of questions that will need to be answered by Council; the\nanticipated response will not be in agreement to the appeal, and larger Council\ndecisions will need to be made; a decision will need to be made for multi-family overlays\nand densities; other cities are grappling with similar matters; noted the City of Berkeley\nis also looking at exclusionary housing provisions and the resulting impacts; a robust\nconversation with the public needs to occur; the matter can be confusing and the\ndensity should be visualized; there are many high opportunity neighborhoods in\nAlameda; expressed support for the decision of the Housing Element being centered on\nCouncil priorities which address housing needs and equity; she will approach\ndiscussions on the topic from the lens of equity; expressed support for a Housing\nElement which is compliant.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the repercussions of a non-compliant\nHousing Element.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated should the City miss the\ndeadline for submitting a compliant Housing Element, the City will automatically and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2021-03-11", "page": 44, "text": "Full Name\nZip code\nEmail\nSignature\nTequh Subiantor 94607 94501\nJoseph Nakhur", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 44, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 43, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to hear from the City Attorney on the\nfiduciary obligations for Council; she agrees that an attempt at unanimity relative to the\nmulti-family overlay is needed; expressed support for City staff providing possible\napproaches to the matter.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for staff providing implications of having a\nHousing Element which is not in compliance with State law.\nThe City Attorney stated there is no pressing deadline due to the approval of appealing\nthe allocation; the Housing Element does not need to be certified until the end of next\nyear; Council has time and the matter will return with updates; one option for Council is\nto continue the matter and allow the Planning, Building and Transportation Director to\nbring back new information based on the appeal process; the new information can\ninform the Council discussion; recommended allowing the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director to perform work with the community; Council may also take a\nnumber of other actions including making commitments about allowing multi-family\noverlays, prioritizing City-owned land or Council may decide not to take action; staff\nrecommends any Council direction for litigation be brought forth in Closed Session;\nCouncil has a wide range of options with a lot of time.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when Council can anticipate an update on the appeal\nprocess.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that an update on the\nappeal should be available by the end of the calendar year; an e-mail follow up to\nCouncil with a more definitive date will be sent in the coming days.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the timeline for the anticipated appeals schedule; noted\nthe Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) will adopt the final RHNA plan in\nDecember.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff will approach the work\nas a series of steps which will play out over the next nine months; staff understands\nroughly 1,500 units have already been approved in projects; outlined Encinal Terminals\nproject timeline; staff plans to be back to Council in the near future for Encinal Terminals\ndiscussion and evaluation; should Council vote to approve the project, 589 units will be\nadded to the 1,500 already approved units; staff plans to come before Council in\nSeptember for a project at Alameda Point to gain a better understanding of the\nallowable units for the space; by the end of the year, staff will know how many units to\nanticipate between Encinal Terminals, Alameda Point and others; staff will know the\nfinal RHNA allocation by the end of the year and will be able to determine the gap to fill\nwith the multi-family overlay; staff will then be able to get into specifics with Council;\nnoted updates on locations for multi-family overlays and densities will be provided;\nupdates on overlays and density will be difficult to provide until the final RHNA allocation\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2021-03-11", "page": 43, "text": "BO\nPrincipal\ntha\ncostib\n12/24\naweN and\nnews", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 43, "text": "Park Avenue Heritage Area\nSeptember 2019\nto\n07\n#73\n179\n- - #95\n1201\n1203\n1207\n1211\n1213-6\n1217\n1227\n1229-31\n1286 37\n1247\nPARK\nAVENUE\n=\nTREES\n2414-1 21\n1333\n1344\n1345 47 1349\n1551\n1393-57 1509\n1375\nPARK\nAVENUE\n1304\nISOS\n1308\n1314\n1318\n1320\n1322\n1334\n1336-38\n1340\n1344\n1346\n1350\nPARK\nAVENUE\n#66\n#70\n#74\n##2\nIISO\n#95\n1200\n1206\n1220\n1222\n224\n1224\n1252\n1236\n1240\n1246\n1250-52\n1254\n1258\n5 S 5\n2\nand\nResidences opposed to having\nplayground in Jackson Park\n(based on a partial survey)\nPARK", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 42, "text": "non-compliant; it is ok for the City to end up in Court; a long-term answer to the question\nwill result; the multi-family overlay is not a magic concept to duck State allocations; staff\ncame up with the multi-family overlay in order to sell and ignore the Charter based on\nState laws and calculations; the concept had been pitched to Council and was not\nfought by Councilmembers; Measure A is illegal and the multi-family overlay is a way for\nthe City to pretend the matter is being addressed; now the City must address the matter\nin having a multi-family overlay which is placed at well over 30 units per acre; the\nhousing units will need to be everywhere; he does not feel comfortable being one of the\nCouncil votes to ignore the will of the voters; expressed support for Council votes being\nflexible and an understanding that the multi-family overlay will be more than 30 units per\nacre in some places; for encouraging staff to work on the matter; expressed concern for\nwhat will occur in six months' time; expressed concern for proposed units on Park Street\nbeing small and over 30 units per project and non-compliant; stated that he is ok with\nbeing non-compliant should it mean the ability to be ethically aligned with the previous\nquestion posed at the election; he will not be part of a majority which rams through\nmulti-family overlays; the full Council needs to be the adult in the room.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the discussion can be tabled for the time being due to there\nbeing no majority vote on anything.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Councilmembers are City fiduciaries; one of the biggest\nproblems with the State of California is the previous allowing of zoning via the ballot\nbox; the result is the current housing conundrum being faced; the majority of people that\nturned out to vote cast the winning ballots; the resulting decisions have shown the City\nof Alameda does not want to comply with regulations and will limit the ability to have\nlocal control and project-by-project decision making; Council and many jurisdictions\nhave allowed for limiting local control through different measures; Alameda is not unique\nin the issues being faced; outlined uniqueness arguments from cities across the state;\nstated many different jurisdictions have exclusionary zoning provisions or limits on\namounts of density and construction types; expressed concern for Council having\nconflicting obligations; she would like to hear the options for Council; noted the\nresolution is before Council for consideration however, a decision does not have to be\nmade at the current meeting; it is important to have a discussion about available\noptions; she does not want to cause or push a lawsuit to be filed against the City one\nway or another; the elephant in the room must be addressed; expressed concern for the\nlegacy of zoning by the ballot box which has caused current limitations.\n(21-459) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a vote is needed to consider new items after 11\np.m.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing all of the remaining agenda\nitems that can be heard before midnight.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2021-03-11", "page": 42, "text": "S\nFull Name\nZip code\nEmail\nSignature\nMIGE COAD >\n94941\nmcardy@hotmail.com/\nas\nStron McMedica\n94501\nAn\n94(9450)\ndanclone@yahoo.com\nform\nTommy L\n94607\nHans@gmail.com\nRonnie Lee\n94612\nII\nAutmuniting\n94552\nPALL", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 42, "text": "CARNEGIE\nINNOVATION HALL\nVISUALIZING\nCARNEGIE INNOVATION HALL\nJOIN US\nAlameda's historic Carnegie Library is being restored into Carnegie Innovation\nHall: a state-of-the-art center for performance, education, technology, and\ncommunity and we need you!\nParticipate in a community workshop and explore the possibilities for this\nproject. Be ready to jump in, meet our team and learn how you can participate in\nour growing community.\nYour presence and engagement in these ongoing workshops is essential to ensure the\nCarnegie Innovation Hall grows into an Alameda space that:\nCreates programming which radically includes our entire community\nIncludes diverse community needs in creative and equitable ways\nBuilds upon the assets of our community\nSUN\nALAMEDA MAIN LIBRARY\n15 SEPT 2019\nSTAFFORD ROOM\n2PM TO 4PM\n1550 OAK STREET, ALAMEDA, CA 94501", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 41, "text": "in providing housing units which are affordable by design; expressed concern for the\nprice of housing at Alameda Point; she does not think the pricing supports the majority\nof Alamedans; many people cannot write a check for one million dollars; most of the\nhousing at Alameda Point is worth over one million dollars; Council needs to come up\nwith a way to build housing so people can buy property and not have to pay rent for life;\nthe problem is serious; questioned how small a unit has to be in order to bring the price\npoint lower; outlined the pricing for smaller homes; there is a problem with smaller units\nhaving a high price tag; the City must work with a developer that can build housing to\nbuy for a price which is significantly under one million dollars; the City is performing\ngentrification; outlined turn of the century housing prices; stated that she is a long-term\nrenter in Alameda and she cannot pay one million dollars for a home; she is interested\nin looking at different densities; the densities must be reflected in the price point to\npurchase; expressed support for being flexible; stated that she would like to strike the\nreference to Encinal Terminals from the document; she has yet to put her name on the\nproject and she might not do so; she is still negotiating the project and including Encinal\nTerminals is not appropriate; a plan has been approved without the swap; outlined\nproject viability and costs per unit; she does not know how much revenue developers\nactually make on projects; a plan has been approved for Encinal Terminals, should the\ndeveloper want a swap, negotiations will need to occur; any reference to Encinal\nTerminals in the resolution document alludes to an already Council-approved project\nswap.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a difference between properties which require four-\naffirmative Council votes and properties which require three-affirmative Council votes to\napprove; should the City be told by the State to build housing units at either 2,650 or\n5,300, the units must be placed somewhere; the City will look elsewhere if it is not able\nto use the Encinal Terminals site,; the question to Council is whether or not to approve\nvacant City-owned land.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he has not heard a broad commitment for what\na\nmulti-family overlay will look like; he understands flexibility is needed; expressed\nconcern for moving forward with a flexible multi-family overlay; he wants to be clear in\nhis agreement with housing comments provided by Councilmember Herrera Spencer\nhowever, the housing policies being pushed including the approval to file an appeal, are\nthe reason why housing costs are so high; the Housing Authority is spending one million\ndollars per unit to build housing units; 200-square foot homes can be built in Alameda\nhowever, they will not sell for $400,000; smaller units will still be extremely expensive;\nnew houses are never cheap; Alameda is not building new houses so the costs cannot\nfilter down the housing costs as traditionally done; the City will continue to ensure the\nhigh cost of housing should units not be built; he is lucky to own his home in Alameda\nand could not afford to live in Alameda in today's rates; his goal is to try to stop the\nproblem occurring to allow others the privilege of living in Alameda; he would like to\nknow there is more; the voters have clearly stated the want for housing to be limited to\nthe greatest extent possible in Alameda; voters want Council to honor the Charter;\nnoted that he is in a difficult place should he vote to violate the Charter and ignore the\ncommunity which voted; he will be honoring the voters which may cause the City to be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2021-03-11", "page": 41, "text": "Full Name\nZip code\nEmail\nSignature\nTony Xlony\n94501\nmy\nMoctor Kankara\n94610\nstay\nJoan Hu\n94501\njoun23hy@gmail.com\nRich Hucag\n94602\nrichkhugge\nthat\nKenny Lee\n94501\nKennylee@gmailes\nMammura Kohmoko\n94610\nKRAMOKOGMAHAOULD\ngmail Com\nJohn Rcsp\n94701\nJohn Koll G gmail.\ncan\nan\nTam Lam\n94618\nTanLam &\nsmalling\nangy\nBrianmiller G\nBrian Miller\n94602\nbahworican\ndes\nken wei\n94ba\nKennig\nyana,com\nIn\nAndy Lin\nauler\nLin.Andy G\nyanwiton\nmy", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 41, "text": "CARNEGIE\nHOME ABOUT RESTORATION COMMUNITY USES TEAM PARTICIPATE CONTACT\nIt\nINNOVATION HALL\ne\n00\nor\nS\n9\nCARNEGIE\nINNOVATION HALI\nCheck our website\nFor future meetings and join our mailing list\ncarnegieinnovationhall.org", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 40, "text": "The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the City needs to remain\nflexible; outlined a two story building having 80 units per acre with small workforce units;\nthe units are small and affordable; noted 80 units per acre at a larger site, such as\nSouth Shore, is not necessary; 30 units at South Shore will be plenty; outlined support\nfor projects from West Alameda Business Association; stated the unit fluctuation is a\ngood discussion to have while planning; the appropriate number of units for Webster\nStreet might not be appropriate for the South Shore area or Alameda Point; Council\nshould let the community decide how many units to get out of the allocation at each\nproject site location; noted massing diagrams will be provided in order to identify the\ndensity needed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she shares the belief of units needing to be affordable\nby design which are smaller and command a lower price; a range of units are needed;\nexpressed support for smaller units.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Council should lead by the type of community which fits\nin the built environment; Alameda has a homogenizing built environment; outlined\nShoreline Avenue's design; stated a uniform density exists throughout Alameda; 30\nunits per acre is not an arbitrary number, the number is required and eligible by State\nlaw; it is wrong to allocate 5,300 units and a regime should not be set in place which\naccommodates 5,300 units; the regime should accommodate 2,650 units and he\nsuspects the current 30 units per acre will work; should Council lean on the side of\nbeing flexible, the City will be accommodating 5,300 units; expressed concern for being\nflexible.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated it is premature to decide the\ndensities; the City does not yet know the RHNA allocation due to the appeal and should\nnot be deciding the density until the allocation is known; a year-long planning process is\nneeded in order to make some of the recommended decisions; the one thing driving the\nissue is staff cannot afford to have disagreements at the end of the Housing Element\nprocess; should the State deadline be missed, penalties are immediately paid; Council\nmust be convinced over the coming year that the City has a good plan to accommodate\nthe RHNA allocation; Council is currently going beyond where is needed; a Housing\nElement will be adopted; judgement should be reserved for where and how high the\ndensities should be until the numbers can be presented; should Council wish to set an\nabsolute cap and constrain the process over the coming year, staff will work with the will\nof Council however, the action is not recommended.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she cannot imagine Council will vote to adopt a\nHousing Element which does not comply with State law; the penalties are steep for non-\ncompliance.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not know the density of The\nWillows housing; expressed support for comparative density being shared as the\nprocess moves along; stated that she does agree with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's comments\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 40, "text": "Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an upcoming agenda will\ncontain any related matters.\nThe City Manager responded the Police Chief is putting together a presentation for the\nSeptember 21st Council meeting.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the time is now 12:00 a.m. and the meeting must be\nadjourned.\n(21-563) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.\n(21-564) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational\nVehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.\n(21-565) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate\nHomeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property\nManagement. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.\n(21-566) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints\nLimiting Housing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and\nCouncilmember Daysog). Not heard.\n(21-567) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to\nDevelop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the\n2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog). Not\nheard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\n(21-568) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting\nat 12:03 a.m. in memory of Beth Aney and former Councilmember Barbara Thomas.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n32", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 40, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JANUARY 5, 2016--5:33 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:37 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 5:58 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(16-001) Conference with Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); City\nNegotiator: Elizabeth D. Warmerdam; Employee Organizations: International\nBrotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW), Electric Utility Professional\nAssociation of Alameda (EUPA), Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA),\nAlameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit (PANS), and Alameda\nManagement and Confidential Employees Association; (MCEA) Under Negotiation:\nSalaries and terms of employment.\n(16-002) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to\nlitigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code;\nNumber of cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action). Not heard.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced that direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:26 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2021-03-11", "page": 40, "text": "Full Name\nis code\nEmail\nN\n1\nEUNICE FURUTA\n94606\nModeleine Malon\n94606\nModmanone\nGayle Thomas\n94501\nAlue myshoff\n94501\ndicemyahrif@gmail.\ncm John\nMEYLIN SANCHER\n94601\nmelele9@gmail.com\nDand Meyers\n94501\nKEVINL HERRING\n94502\nREVIN.HERRING etc. W\nStephen Lonie\n94502\nslonie@ad.com\nS67\nStan Tang\n94502\nstnlytange Yahoo com\nsore\nJessica Taal\n94941\ntaalbem@gmail.com\nAme\nNANCY SON GORDON\n94501\nMannah Green\n94501\nhannah.m.green@\nsmale TT", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 40, "text": "Ways you can help make this happen:\nJoin the\nVolunteer to help with\nFundraising Committee\nCommunity organizing\nFinance Committee\nEvent planning\nPublic Outreach Committee\nAdministration\nDiversity Committee\nWriting\nHistoric Restoration Committee\nIT and Infrastructure\nEducational Programming Committee\nEntrepreneurial Programming Committee\nEvent Programming Committee\nTechnology Committee\nCommunity Advisory Board\nBoard of Directors", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 39, "text": "expressed concern for members thinking the multi-family overlay is something specific\nwith a set number; stated presentations have indicated the multi-family overlay can\nhave a number of different unit sizes; he does not want staff to spin their wheels\nreturning to Council with an unwanted recommendation; expressed support for policy\ndirection being provided at the current and next Council meeting.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated those not supportive of the multi-family overlay zoning are\nfor single-family residential and suburban sprawl which does not seem to be\nenvironmentally advantageous for a City concerned with sea-level rise and rising\ngroundwater.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for multi-family overlay as currently used;\nstated the amount of density can never be more than 30 units per acre without factoring\nin Density Bonus, or 36 units per acre with Density Bonus; noted multi-family overlay\ndoes not currently allow anything bigger than the stated units; 30 units per acre is\nsufficient in meeting State law.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated in order to get to 5,300 units\nand meet the criteria outlined by Councilmember Daysog, staff will then need to spread\nthe multi-family overlay over much larger areas of the City; there is a benefit in being\nflexible with the matter; noted the multi-family overlay will need to increase above 30\nunits per acre should the City have 5,300 unit allocation; setting a cap of 30 units per\nacre now sets an unintended consequence of applying the overlay to larger areas\nthrough the City; recommended Council remain flexible on the matter and let the\nplanning process play out; stated having 30 units per acre is viable however, the\ncitizens may want to concentrate the units in specific locations.\n***\n(21-458) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Daysog is out of speaking time;\nquestioned whether Councilmembers should be set back at nine minutes of speaking\ntime; noted those that have held time will not receive an increase, the time set will be at\nnine minutes.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of adding five minutes of speaking time to\nall Councilmembers.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether Council wants to commit to adopting a\nHousing Element in compliance with State law with the understanding that the matter\nwill return for fine tuning at a later date.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the potential density for multi-family overlay\nshould the units surpass 30 per acre.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 39, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the matter can be brought forth at a later time; stated the\nconsideration is a good point.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed support for providing broad direction to staff to figure out\nwhether there are alternatives for providing broader legal notices and the accompanying\ndetails.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over a potential OGC complaint.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-560) The City Manager announced that all three Alameda Libraries have resumed\nfull service hours and masks are required at all times; discussed a City vaccine\nmilestone; stated 80% of residents 12 years and older have been fully vaccinated and\n92% of residents have received at least the first vaccine shot; stated drop-in vaccine\nclinics are available.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(21-561) Resolution No. 15814, \"Supporting the Goal of Reaching 100% Zero Emission\nVehicle Sales in California by 2030.\" Adopted. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft)\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she did not think the earlier motion to\ncontinue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. included hearing Council Referrals.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the motion from Councilmember Knox White included\ncontinuing the meeting as agendized until 12:00 a.m.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Council Referral, including adoption\nof related resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(21-562) Considering Having an Introduction and Update from the New Police Chief\nregarding Strategies to Address Crimes. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer).\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the Council Referral.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n31", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 39, "text": "COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 3:59 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n39\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 39, "text": "Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:32\na.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda Public Financing Authority\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2021-03-11", "page": 39, "text": "PASR -\nFull Name\nZip code\nEmail\nSignature\nEDGAR LUBER\n94501\nCubber\nAllyson Luber\n94501\nallysonluker@gmail.com\nAngell\nadamluber95a\nadam luber\n94561\nGMail.COM\nlight\nALASSA DOMINGO\n94501\ngmail.com\nAND\nIMAIL.COM\nAmin BROWN\n94501\nBROWNAMIR82\nAmia\nDelleon HAlEy\n94501\nWils\nGabriela Aranda\n94501\n78garanda@gmail.com\n8\nA", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 39, "text": "Potential Community Partners\nAcademy of Alameda\nCollege of Alameda\nAlameda Architectural Preservation Society\nDance10 Performing Arts Center\nAlameda-Based Community Theater Company\nDowntown Alameda Business Association\nAlameda Boys & Girls Club\nEncinal High School\nAlameda Civic Ballet\nFoodshift\nAlameda Community Band\nFrank Bette Center for the Arts\nAlameda Education Foundation\nGinny Parsons\nAlameda Education Fund\nGirl's Inc of the Island City\nGreater Alameda Business Association\nAlameda Museum\nPacific Pinball Museum\nAlameda Naval Air Museum\nRhythmix Cultural Works\nAlameda Point Collaborative\nSaint Joseph Notre Dame High School\nAlameda School of Music\nStarland Music\nAlameda String Academy\nStudio 23\nAltarena Playhouse\nThe California Historical Radio Society\nArt Yowza\nThe USS Hornet Sea, Air & Space Museum\nArtistic Home Studio\nTomorrow Youth Repertory\nBoys and Girls Club of Alameda\nWest Alameda Business Association\nChamber of Commerce\nYu Ying Learning (Mandarin bilingual school)\nWe need your help to grow out this list", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 38, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 27, 2010- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson announced that the City Council attempted to meet in Closed Session\ntonight; due to the pending investigation into the official conduct of Councilmember\nTam, which has been filed with the District Attorney, Councilmember Tam was asked to\nrecuse herself from the Closed Session; Councilmember Tam refused to do so; as a\nresult, the City Council did not meet in Closed Session, but continued the matter to a\nfuture date; the City was unable to transact its official business while the investigation is\npending before the District Attorney's Office and looks to the District Attorney and Grand\nJury to expedite a resolution of the investigation.\n(10-375) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of case:\nCollins V. City of Alameda (Boatworks). Not heard.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 38, "text": "The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the March draft of the\nGeneral Plan put recommendations forward for land use classifications; one is the\nshopping center land use classification referenced by Councilmember Daysog; the draft\nidentified the types of densities and zoning necessary to get to 5,300 units; the Planning\nBoard and a number of speakers on the draft spoke out in opposition of the plan; the\nspeakers supported a general approach to the plan, and a decision of the necessary\nzoning and densities of the various land use classification areas; the decisions can be\nmade when the Housing Element is created; staff released proposed revisions to the\ndraft General Plan and brought the land use classifications more into sync with current\nconditions; staff has eliminated the language which had been recommended to the\nPlanning Board while using the Floor Area Ration (FAR) from the existing zoning of\nshopping centers; staff will be providing a recommendation to Council for approval;\nchanges can be made to the General Plan recommendation prior to being adopted in\nthe fall; the Planning Board will be recommending the Housing Element to Council the\nfollowing fall, with the necessary zoning to meet the RHNA allocation; staff has created\na sequence of steps which allows Council to make decisions in a logical way.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is recommending that\nthe second item does not commit to adopting a Housing Element which is in compliance\nwith State law; stated there will be dire consequences for the City as a result.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded the issue is so complex and convoluted; there are\nother outstanding issues such as categories and densities to come up with in the\nGeneral Plan land use section and the rules which developers can rely on to build at\ndensities sought; the level of discussion is not currently before Council; Council should\nbe discussing the Housing Element compliance and adopting multi-family zoning\nseparately as a standalone discussion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a deadline for filing the RHNA appeal; the other\nrelated matters can allow for more time; questioned whether the undiscussed matters\ncan occur at a later date.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff will be proceeding at the\nassumption of needing multi-family overlays as previously needed; staff is not asking\nCouncil to commit to locations or number of units; staff needs direction on definitive\nmatters; the overall concept will return to Council in the future; staff will be bringing\nmulti-family overlay to Council in order to adopt the Housing Element; there will be no\nscenario in which multi-family overlay is not adopted; staff will need one year to work\nthrough the details of the Housing Element in order to provide Council with a\nrecommendation.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed concern for the staff recommendation being\nwishy-washy, and the recommendation from Councilmember Herrera Spencer is less\nclear; stated Council should not be spending time on multi-family overlays should there\nbe no support from Council; questioned whether Council can provide staff direction;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 38, "text": "Lara Weisiger\nCity Clerk and Secretary SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n2\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 38, "text": "Councilmember Knox White stated the matter is not related to two small, hometown\nnewspapers; the Alameda Journal is owned by a Denver hedge-fund with 100 papers\nand 200 other publications nationwide; the Alameda Sun is a local newspaper;\nexpressed support for Alameda Sun; stated if Council wishes to continue running ads in\nthe Alameda Journal, the number in the original staff report listed $46,000 and Council\ncan commit to funding $46,000 for the Alameda Sun; he did not originally vote to move\nthe legal notices to the Alameda Journal; however, he can support a form of keeping\nlegal ads published in the Alameda Journal as well as providing funding for the Alameda\nSun; expressed support for the proposed motion.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about circulation, which remains the point of legal\nnotices; stated that she would like to see a way to expand circulation for Alameda Sun;\nexpressed support for looking at other options relative to grants and advertising; stated\nher position has not changed; both newspapers are not hometown papers; the desire to\nprovide aid to Alameda Sun is separate from the desire to provide adequate legal\nnotices; she does not support moving legal notices to the Alameda Sun in addition to\nproviding financial aid; expressed support for adding the options proposed by staff.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter should be bifurcated; stated that she\ndoes not support awarding the contract to the Alameda Sun and providing financial aid;\nquestioned whether the City would eventually be the major funder of the Alameda Sun;\nexpressed concern about the concept of the City majorly funding the newspaper.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the cleanest approach is to terminate the contract with\nAlameda Journal and award the contract to the Alameda Sun without providing\nadditional funding to Alameda Sun; the contract provides funding; expressed support for\nthe use of one legal notice provider; expressed support for selecting the Alameda Sun\nto provide legal notices.\nCouncilmember Daysog amended his motion to approve termination of the contract with\nthe Alameda Journal and awarding the contract to the Alameda Sun.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter relates to supporting a local newspaper; inquired\nwhether the seconder of the motion is in agreement with the amended motion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the amended motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nAfter the vote, Councilmember Knox White stated the reason for the matter is due to\nCity Charter requirement which is outdated and does not allow Council to utilize online\nsources; questioned whether Council can provide direction to consider a 2022 general\nelection ballot measure to amend the City Charter section for legal notices.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n30", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 38, "text": "In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director\nstated staff is going to review Mountain View's ordinance and come back with a\nrecommendation regarding whether or not to offer one year leases for existing tenants\nwhen there is a rent increase.\n(16-012) Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending\nAlameda Municipal Code Section 30-5.15 regarding Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to\nDefine and Prohibit the Commercial Cultivation of Medical Marijuana in the City of\nAlameda to Protect the City's Jurisdiction Regarding Cultivation, While Preserving the\nOpportunity to Have a Robust Discussion About Medical Marijuana Cultivation at a\nLater Date. [The Proposed Amendment is Categorically Exempt from the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor\nAlternations to Land Use Limitations.] Introduced.\nThe Planning Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the ordinance prohibits cultivation; the community has not\nhad a discussion; Assembly Bill 21 is on track to pass and be signed by the Governor;\nthat he would prefer the ordinance not take effect if the March 1st deadline vanishes; the\nCity could emulate Placer County, which has declared a local preemption, rather than\ncreating a ban.\nThe City Planner stated agriculture and horticulture are permitted by right in Alameda's\nresidential districts, as well as industrial and commercial; the City would be in a bind if\nsomeone made a request tomorrow; Placer County is requiring use permits and has not\nmade a decision about which districts will allow the use; noted the ordinance can be\nopened back up; stated that he believes the City will start receiving requests.\nVice Mayor moved introduction of the ordinance; stated the matter could be opened\nback up when the State law is clear; now not the time for a robust discussion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nvote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Mayor Spencer -\n4. Noes: Councilmember Oddie - 1.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n38\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 38, "text": "Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the EIR would provide an option for fewer\nhousing units.\nMr. Brown responded an alternative to be studied in the EIR has not been identified;\nstated work still needs to be done; typically, one option would be to have a lower level of\ndevelopment proposed; the EIR consultant and staff, along with comments from\nSunCal, would develop an alternative to be studied for a reasonable, smaller project.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(10-46 CIC) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 10-167, \"Approving and\nAdopting the Five-Year Implementation Plan for the Business and Waterfront and the\nWest End Community Improvement Projects (2010-2014).\" Adopted.\nThe Economic Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nCommissioner Gilmore thanked the Economic Development Director for the\npresentation; stated sometimes the City gets busy pushing ahead on the next project\nand does not take the opportunity to look back on accomplishments; the City has\nchanged for the better.\nThe Economic Development Director stated policy decisions have been put in place\nwith a lot of community input; this is the time for the City to talk about the impact that\nprojects have had on the community; in the last couple of years, funding projects\nwithout redevelopment agency support has been difficult; the construction trade is the\nhardest hit unemployment group in Alameda County.\nCommissioner Tam stated that she would like to echo appreciation to staff; all\nCouncilmembers throughout the State are telling their legislature that redevelopment\nfunds are an economic engine and create jobs; inquired whether the City has a strategy\nfor locating retail sites.\nThe Economic Development Director responded the City has a number of different retail\nopportunities which are not necessarily within the redevelopment project area\nboundaries; stated Alameda Landing has an opportunity for up to 300,000 square feet\nof retail; the City has identified how much the City could handle through a saturation\ninvoice and retail leakage analysis; the Catellus Agreement has a retail marketing plan\nin which Catellus has to meet quarterly with the City; Catellus needs to update the retail\nstrategic planning analysis if it deviates from its basic retail plan; the Marina Village\nShopping Center has issues; Bridgeside Shopping Center never finished leasing its\nproperty; the City needs to work on the strategic retail side.\nSpeaker: Former Councilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda Public Financing Authority\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2021-03-11", "page": 38, "text": "Full Name\nZip code\nEmail\nSignature\nSusan Fagel\n8500\n94501\nSusan-fagel@yahoo.com\nEldie Casti\n94501\nec15155@yahoo.com\nall\nKevin Fagel\n94501\nkevinf3262@gmail.com\nMatt Stevenson\n94501\nMithours\ncan\nMARSHA LAISON\nMarthy", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 38, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 37, "text": "COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-397 CC) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Public Utilities\nBoard.\nMayor Johnson nominated Madeline Deaton for appointment to the Public Utilities\nBoard.\n(10-398 CC) Councilmember Gilmore inquired why Council did not find out about the\ndocumentation given to the District Attorney on May 26, 2010 until six weeks later.\nThe City Attorney responded the District Attorney's office requested that the matter be\nkept confidential pending their investigation; stated it was only at the insistence of the\nattorneys for the City and Interim City Manager, given the fact that it was necessary to\nhold a Closed Session regarding SunCal, that precipitated the need to make the matter\npublic.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:47\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n37\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 37, "text": "not wish to strip the language, a partially stripped resolution has been proposed by\nChristopher Buckley; noted Councilmember Herrera Spencer's resolution adds\nemphasis on the need to renegotiate the Navy housing cap in an attempt to eliminate\nthe cap; stated the staff report outlines the current Navy housing cap allowance of 1,200\nunits; renegotiating the cap will be an attempt to get the maximum amount of units\npossible at Alameda Point; a variety of constraints exist at Alameda Point which will\nhave to be worked through; removing the housing cap is a good idea from staff's\nperspective; there are fair housing aspects of State Housing law; placing all units at\nAlameda Point is not a strategy; Alameda Point does have a lot of vacant land which is\nunderutilized; Alameda Point allows for 25% affordable housing and has a strong case\nfor maximizing the space; staff is looking for direction and confirmation of how Council\nwould like to lead the Housing Element process.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with removing the Navy housing cap; it\ndoes not make sense to pay a premium for adding more housing at Alameda Point\nhowever, the approach may not be the wisest; signaling the Navy by including language\nin the resolution may not be wise; noted there are Congress members and lobbyists that\ncan help to ensure the negotiations are as successful and effective as possible;\nquestioned whether the same goal can be accomplished by providing clear direction to\nstaff to begin exploring a pursuit of lifting the Navy housing cap; stated there is likely a\nlot of political support for the matter.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff can accomplish the task\neither way; Council may provide direction to staff; a successful and quick negation is\ndesired.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has included language in the proposed\nresolution related to the Navy cap; the $100,000 per unit cost creates difficulty in\nbuilding affordable housing; the goal is to build affordable, workforce housing;\nincreasing the developer costs means increasing the cost to the consumer; she\nincluded the language in order to keep supported language contained in one document;\nexpressed support for striking the Navy cap language in her resolution; she would like\nan understanding of the document; the cap should be changed in order to meet the\nRHNA allocation should a reduction not be granted by HCD.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there are three items: commitment to Housing Element\ncompliance, adopting multi-family zoning and the use of vacant City-owned land; the\nissue of commitment to Housing Element compliance and adopting multi-family zoning\nare matters in and of themselves; the General Plan is not being addressed in the matter\nof Land Use; an element being designated in the General Plan is called Community\nMixed-Use; the Community Mixed-Use land use will have 30 to 65 units per acre; it is\npossible for Council to not change the zoning; there are inconsistencies between the\ndensities expressed in the General Plan and the zoning; the General Plan land use\ncategory takes precedence; the areas are subject to Density Bonuses, and every\nhousing project will be subject to the Density Bonus; the discussion is richer than a\nsimple vote of the matter and a detailed discussion is needed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 37, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE\nCITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY\nIMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY-JULY 18, 2017--7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 2:48 a.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners\nEzzy\nAshcraft,\nMatarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer -\n5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(17-490 CC/17-010SACIC) Public Hearing to Consider: 1) Approving and Authorizing\nthe City Manager to Execute a Consent to Partial Assignment and Assumption\nAgreement for the Alameda Disposition and Development Agreement for the Alameda\nLanding Mixed Use Project; and 2) Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and\nExecute an Operating Memorandum for the Disposition and Development Agreement\nConsistent with the Term Sheet. A Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for\nthe Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project was Certified in Accordance with\nthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (State Clearinghouse #2006012091)\nin\n2006. An Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Actions has been Prepared.\nApproved.\nThe matter was heard under the Public Hearing regarding Alameda Landing on the\nregular City Council meeting.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor/Chair Spencer - 1.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 2:49\na.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 37, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired how much time is anticipated to finish the CIP and the\nappropriation of funds.\nThe Community Development Director responded the discussion would also include the\nprogram fee; she estimates one hour to one and a half hours.\nMayor Spencer suggested continuing the meeting until 5:30 p.m. on March 1st, then\nhold the regularly scheduled meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nThe Community Development Director stated extension of the urgency ordinance\nextending the moratorium would be discussed at the regular meeting.\nAt 2:38 a.m., Mayor Spencer continued the meeting to March 1, 2016 at 5:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n35\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 37, "text": "Protection Plan (PPP) funds.\nUrged Council reconsider the prior vote and award the contract for the publication of\nlegal notices to the Alameda Sun; stated the Alameda Sun is locally-owned and\noperated and is a vital part of the community; outlined the Alameda spelling bee, which\nis sponsored by the Alameda Sun; stated the Alameda Sun is engaged and active\nwithin the City in ways which go beyond other publications; the Alameda Sun provides\nan outlet for City government and is the most important outlet for informing Alamedans\nabout news; urged Council find other ways to financially support the Alameda Sun:\nChuck Kapelke, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for Council immediately considering\nreversing the previous decision.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of terminating the contract with the Alameda\nJournal and awarding the contract to the Alameda Sun and inviting the Alameda Sun to\nobtain other sources of funding described in the three bullet points of the staff report,\nwith a cap of no more than an additional $19,200.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not think the City should\nterminate the contract with the Alameda Journal; Alameda Journal has a more\nextensive circulation, which is important in providing legal notices; she does not want to\npit one small newspaper against another; expressed concern about any punitive stance\ntowards any newspaper; stated that she thinks the City can provide some forms of\nfinancial assistance to the Alameda Sun, including ARPA funds; outlined funding\nreceived by Alameda Sun; stated the ability to apply for the City's COVID-19 relief or\nAlameda Strong funds was by lottery; the City has since expended the funds and will\nneed to find other sources; expressed support for following the first bullet listed in the\nalternatives to keep the contract with the Alameda Journal and provide direction on\nfunding to assist the Alameda Sun in any of the listed forms, including the General\nFund, ARPA funds, placing ads for Restaurant Week and sponsoring a City section;\nstated the City Attorney's office, Public Information Officer and Recreation and Parks\nDepartment all offer informational pieces; she wants to see the City assist the Alameda\nSun; the question remains of the amount to provide; the contract is not price specific; an\nestimate is provided based on publication average of $46,000 per year; the amount is\nnot guaranteed.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about the remaining meeting time;\nstated a motion is on the floor; the matter of terminating the contract with the Alameda\nJournal and awarding it to Alameda Sun is critical.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined that she will be moving future pulled Consent Calendar\nitems to the end of the agenda in the future.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n29", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 37, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he would have liked to see something regarding\nmom and pop landlords and just cause eviction; however, we live in a world of\ncompromise; focusing on Ordinance 1, Council began to flush out elements of how to\nmove forward; he is concerned that the economics are not being dealt with seriously\nenough; more can be figured out over the coming weeks; at least Council is focusing on\nOrdinance 1.\nMayor Spencer stated at least one email was received regarding changes being made\nto no longer allow pets.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the issue has been addressed because pets are\nincluded in the definition of rent; increasing a pet fee would apply to reaching the\nthreshold.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like the issue of changes being made to no longer\nallow pets to return to Council.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated perhaps the matter could be considered a reduction\nin service.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the ordinance would return, to which the\nCity Attorney responded staff could draft the new ordinance and bring back the first\nreading on February 2nd.\nThe Assistant City Attorney suggested the ordinance return at the same time as the\ncapital improvement plan to provide the whole picture.\nThe City Attorney inquired when the plan would be ready, to which the Community\nDevelopment Director responded the second meeting in February.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the moratorium would have to be extended\nagain.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the moratorium has been extended until March.\nThe City Attorney stated the Council could extend the moratorium again at said time to\nallow for a first and second reading and 30 days for the ordinance to become effective.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is fine with doing so; stated staff should take the time\nneeded; inquired whether Council agrees.\nAfter Council expressed consensus, Mayor Spencer stated a majority agrees.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff will draft the ordinance based on the\nconsensus direction.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n37\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 37, "text": "is not sure whether changes have occurred in the last month or so; the School District is\nevaluating facility needs; SunCal has provided two school sites within the plan.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated school site placement has been an issue.\nMr. Brown stated the he is unaware of any location issues, but SunCal would be happy\nto engage in said conversation; the issue is a normal give and take process and would\nbe part of the EIR.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether SunCal is working on a transportation plan.\nMr. Brown responded transportation planning is a big part of the budget; stated SunCal\nis finding its own expert to advance the ball on transportation and transit issues;\nalternatives are being reviewed; SunCal realizes that issues need to be fully mitigated in\norder for a plan to be viable and approved by the City; SunCal recognizes that\ntransportation issues cannot become worse and is willing to work with its own\nconsultant in addition to the joint consultant retained through the EIR.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda Public Financing Authority\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2021-03-11", "page": 37, "text": "-\nFull Name\nZip code\nSignature\nLilyLeung\n94502\nJackie Cungug\nCOT seang\nfly\n94502\ngeta\nBarbara Besions\n94502\nChanya Bartel\nbysic14@ad\nBelisped\n94601\nchuangsakulde\nByahae lir\nKaris Kim\n94582\ncanskim207@gmail.com\n22\nTrinity Zhang\n94502\ntrinityzhancy@live.com\nB\nWesley Omi\n94502\nWesley so 1106e\nLouisa Chew\nbuisashewe\negm\nWelfa\n94502\nMarie Fung\n94502\nmfungusl eyahooon\nMarie Favor\nVicki Majhor\n94501\nrpmremeant.com\nUniki mahn\nRandy Friedman\n94502\nrandy-fnedman\nRob Currier\n94.500\ncitagehotmail.com\nRandy Freedman\nRefurtar\nTommy Wong\n94502\noh =tom\nElizabeth Becht\n94501\nNancy Gordon\n94501\nrevn)o\nSanth\n994542\nbloss@gmail.com\noriko\n94502\nsto20200@yahoo.com\noff blossack\nlawa Sumrall\n94501\nmsmitchrolattnet\nsummall\nLaura\nMitchell Sumt\n94501\nMitchcoblue@attric\nMondall\nsummal\n94501\nL", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 37, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 36, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore stated that she wants consensus to bring the matter back for a\nfull-blown discussion.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would prefer to bring the matter back rather than\ndiscussing the matter at 1:45 a.m.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she is in concurrence.\nCouncilmember Tam moved that the matter be brought back.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated past practices have been to bring legal\nopinions to Closed Session.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated this time, she found out about the existence of the\nopinion beforehand.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated a hard copy has never been provided to Council [to keep] in\nthe past.\nMayor Johnson stated the City Attorney has followed past practices; Councilmember\nGilmore wants to discuss the issue.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the intent would be to discuss the matter or\nprovide a policy for handling confidential documents.\nMayor Johnson stated the discussion and/or policy would need to be addressed when\nthe matter is heard.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she wants the matter agendized for further\ndiscussion, and wants some sort of direction to come out of the discussion.\nMayor Johnson stated the process followed by the City Attorney has been consistent\nwith past practices.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Council has not affirmed policy and direction.\nMayor Johnson stated a policy is nowhere to be found if there is one.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor\ndeHaan - 1.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n36\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-10", "page": 36, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye;\nCouncilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Abstain.\nAyes: 4. Abstention: 1.\nThe City Clerk stated the subcommittee will draft the rebuttal; inquired whether the\nCouncil wants the subcommittee to decide who will sign the rebuttal argument,\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of having the subcommittee, which has\nagreed to draft the rebuttal, decide who would sign the rebuttal argument.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer inquired whether the Council decided who would\ndraft the rebuttal, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative; noted the\nargument in favor would be transmitted to the subcommittee after the deadline\ntomorrow.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember\nOddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Abstain. Ayes: 4. Abstention:\n1.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJuly 10, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 36, "text": "238\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:47 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 36, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to pivot to the Planning,\nBuilding and Transportation Director and see if sense can be made of the Council\ndirection provided.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated clarity to the City-wide\nprohibition related to Measure Z is to be provided in acknowledging that the City does\nallow multi-family housing through the overlay and Density Bonus; staff will need to not\nuse the clarity as an argument as to why the appeal for 2,650 units will be allowed;\nnoted State law states Density Bonus cannot be counted on for RHNA numbers; stated\na developer may take advantage of the Density Bonus however, the Density Bonus\ncannot be counted on; staff can write the appeal to include the clear distinction.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff feels as though sufficient\ndirection has been provided from Council, to which the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is agreement in including the 2,650 unit\nallocation in the appeal.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the number.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he prefers no number be included however, he\nwill support the 2,650 units being included.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff has input on the proposed units.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff will include the units as\nrequested and will explain the determination as recommended by Councilmember\nDaysog.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the changes are acceptable to Councilmember\nDaysog as the seconder of the motion, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in\nthe affirmative.\nOn the call for the questions, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated there are three different\nresolutions on the table and all three have common denominators in supporting a\nHousing Element which is in compliance with State law, using multi-family housing as\nnecessary to meet the RHNA, and maximizing the use of City land; the resolutions differ\nin how each characterizes between Measure A and the Charter; noted the Planning\nBoard has stripped the language; questioned whether City Council would like to strip the\nlanguage of the resolution as well; the staff resolution can be adopted should Council\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-07-18", "page": 36, "text": "Respectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-16", "page": 36, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese - 1.\nThe Community Development Director stated the matter will be back March 1, 2016 for\na second reading of the ordinance and to extend the moratorium for 22 more days until\nthe ordinance can go into effect; staff can expand the item to include the resolution on\nthe CIP, which does not need to be effective until the ordinance is effective.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the CIP resolution only requires one reading.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nappropriation of funds also has to be discussed.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of continuing the meeting on the CIP.\nThe motion FAILED for lack of a second.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that if the meeting is continued, it would not be subject\nto public comment.\nMayor Spencer stated the second reading cannot be continued; inquired if the meeting\ncould be continued to 6:00 p.m. on March 1st to address the CIP and the appropriation.\nThe Community Development Director responded that the resolution and the\nappropriation are not required to be done at a regularly scheduled meeting so Council\ncould start early.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated there was no public comment on the CIP or the fee.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether public comment could be allowed at the continuation\nmeeting.\nThe Assistant City Attorney clarified if the Council wants to continue the item to a date\ncertain or the next meeting, public comment would not be required because the matter\nhas already come before the public at a public hearing.\nMayor Spencer stated there will need to be public comment on the ordinance second\nreading; she would like to continue this part of the item to an hour before the March 1st\nregular meeting; then, have the second reading and public comment on the second\nreading at the regular meeting.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a time has to be picked; she inquired on how much\ntime would be needed for the items to be able to start the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nwas needed for the items to be able to start the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nThe City Clerk stated there is no closed session on March 1st\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n34\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-09-07", "page": 36, "text": "Alameda Sun.\nThe City Clerk and the Economic Development and Community Services Manager gave\na brief presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Economic and Community Services\nManager stated qualified businesses could have received $7,500 from one grant or\nanother and staff evaluates the application in order to determine qualification.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether applicants were able to receive funds from either\ngrant source or both, to which the Economic and Community Services Manager\nresponded only one.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Alameda Sun has been able to receive funds\nfrom the State or federal government, to which the Economic and Community Services\nManager responded in the affirmative; stated the Alameda Sun received Paycheck\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 7, 2021\n28", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-01-05", "page": 36, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated a landlord might need to have a family member move in\nfor medical reasons.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated there is an exception; extension of time does not\napply to a family member moving in.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Council needs to decide whether or not to do a sliding\nscale.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the table attached to the staff report shows\nrelocation benefits in other jurisdictions are substantially more and can contain\nadditional charges.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would prefer to go with the staff\nrecommendation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he could go either way.\nMayor Spencer stated two Councilmember support the staff recommendation and two\ndo not.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would support the staff recommendation.\nMayor Spencer stated the relocation benefit would be tied to length of tenancy.\nCouncilmember Oddie noted the reduced services petition is outstanding, but could\ncome back.\nThe Community Development Director stated there is a request to analyze the\ncomponents of the fee; staff would continue to recommend that there be a fee to\nadminister whatever program is adopted; a more in depth analysis can now be\ncompleted since staff understands what the program would be.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether tenants could petition for reduced services.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not inclined to support Ordinance 3\nbecause she thought the provision would be more complicated to administer, especially\nin the first year; stated the matter could be considered after a year.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the matter should be reviewed after the capital\nimprovement plan is addressed; landlords have indicated that they will not spend money\nto invest in their properties if rent increases are limited; properties will end up with\nbroken heaters, etc.; that he would like the matter to return before one year.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n36\nJanuary 5, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 36, "text": "Mr. Brown responded that SunCal indicated that the ENA would be ending soon and\nthat SunCal wanted to remain involved in the project.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired if the conversation included whether the Navy supports\nthe ENA extension, to which Mr. Brown responded briefly.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Section 20-1 states that\nSunCal is not to meet or engage in negotiations with the Navy concerning the project or\nproject site without giving advanced, reasonable notice to the City in order to give the\nCity an opportunity to negotiate with SunCal and the Navy at such meeting; inquired\nwhat is Mr. Brown's interpretation of said Section.\nMr. Brown responded that he concurs that the statement is the first sentence of the\nSection; however, the second sentence states \"notwithstanding anything to the contrary\nin the foregoing, developer is authorized to communicate directly with the Navy\nregarding the project and project site as long as the developer promptly keeps the City\ninformed of such communications\"; stated SunCal made no attempt to negotiate with\nthe Navy without the City being present.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired how the meeting came\nabout; further inquired whether Mr. Brown just happened to be in Washington, D.C.\nMr. Brown responded in the negative; stated SunCal does a fair amount of business\nwith the Department of Defense; originally, SunCal was talking to the Department of\nDefense regarding solar opportunities; SunCal has been pursuing entering into a Power\nPurchase Agreement to sell power to the armed services; the opportunity came to head\nat the meeting.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that it does not sound like a\nmeeting was planned to follow up on Council's opportunity to meet with the Navy;\ninquired whether SunCal informed City staff immediately after the meeting.\nMr. Brown responded in the affirmative; stated SunCal still wants to meet with senior\nNavy staff, Councilmembers, and City staff to negotiate terms of the Agreement; one\nfrustration has been that SunCal desires to have communications with the Navy but the\nCity has not been willing to schedule a joint meeting because of pro forma concerns and\nother issues; the situation is curious in that after a year of requesting to have a joint\nmeeting, SunCal is considered to be in breach of the Agreement.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the path to the\nresolution of pro forma issues.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff has been working\non the new pro forma for less than two months; stated an extensive report was attached\nto the June 1, 2010 staff report regarding the pro forma; staff was directed to sit down\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda Public Financing Authority\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2021-03-11", "page": 36, "text": "Preserve Courts 1-6 at Fairfield Tennis Complex\nWe, the undersigned, call on the City of Alameda and ARPD to drop the consideration to converting court 44 or any of the tennis courts at WAPA, Krusi or Leydecker park courts into\npickle ball courts since the Longfetlow courts are already home to pickle ball. We request the city and ARPD look into other solutions for the pickle ball demand and we also request\nlooking into meeting the higher demand for tennis courts that has also occurred this year. The wait times to play tennis at WAPA. Krusi, Leydecker are excessive during the weekdays\nafter 4pm and on all weekends The existing tennis courts are not enough to meet this demand for tennis courts currently in Alameda Tennis courts currently not being used AHS. EHS.\nCollege of Alameda. Navel base courts\nFull name\nPostcode\nEmail address\nSignature\nAlex Pryshch. epa\n94501\nalex33603@yahoo.com\n#\nAndrew Hom\n94502\nfarms.new-yorka@yahoo\nPLA\nJon Greer\n94501\njgreen113@gmail.com\nIf\nMagieMorom\n94501\nan\nEt lifeta\nthe\nEV.\n94561\nMoses Dmolade\n94409\nKS\ne\nJun Macbonald\n94582\nSEANMACDONOCOMGASTNET\nfm\nPath Dumsly\n94502\nRathanasby@gmail.com\nRm\nPallins\n94597\nRideRhin @@hotmail.com\nin\nDavid Alle-\n94501\ndallanmare@gmail.com\nI.\nZayden muse\nP4501\nzaydon@Allernoon.com Zayden\niad lee\n94501\nTad-601@Yahoo.com\nth\nRyanynny\n94502\nlol @gmail. 100m\nRay\nfres Speper\n94608\n(or\nfu\nPublished and promoted by the Alameda Happy Tennis Group at Fairfield Tennis Complex\nWhen complete, piease return to: The Alameda Happy Tennis Group at Fairfield Tennis Complex or\nemail directly to both ARPD@alamedaca.gov and awooldridge@atamedaca.gev\nFor more info please join our F acebock Group www\nNe may conted you for the ihs - bul will - USI your ine ane suspose or share 2 entity", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2021-03-11.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2019-09-12", "page": 36, "text": "", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2019-09-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-16", "page": 35, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND\nSUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY--MARCH 16, 2021-6:59 - P.M.\nMayor/Chair\nEzzy\nAshcraft\nconvened\nthe\nmeeting\nat\n7:02\np.m.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Herrera\nSpencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy\nAshcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll\ncall vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox\nWhite: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so\nenacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*21-151 CC/21-06 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor\nAgency to the Community Improvement Commission (SACIC) Meeting Held on\nFebruary 2, 2021. Approved.\n(*21- CC/21-07 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report for the\nQuarter Ending September 30, 2020. Accepted.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at\n7:04 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n1\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nMarch 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-27", "page": 35, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan noted transportation is missing.\nThe motion carried by consensus.\n(10-396 CC) Discuss/Take Action on the City Attorney Policy of Not Providing Legal\nOpinions to Councilmembers in Advance of Meetings.\nCouncilmember Gilmore gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired what Section 8-2 of the Charter states.\nThe City Attorney responded the last phrase of the last sentence of Section 8-2 states\n\"The City Attorney shall be the legal advisor of and attorney and counsel for the City\nand for all officers and boards thereof in all matters relating to their official duties, and\nwhenever requested in writing by any of them, he shall give his or her legal advice in\nwriting\"; a legal opinion was given in writing; that she advised each individual\nCouncilmember that the legal opinion would be handed out in Closed Session which\nhas been done many times before; that she needs to have some discretion as to how\nbest to do her job to protect Council and the City; she made it clear that the opinion was\ngoing to be provided in Closed Session, but that any Councilmember could come to her\noffice to read the opinion in advance; the opinion was to be collected at the end of the\nClosed Session as has often been done which is not a violation of the City Attorney's\nduties under the Charter.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the opinion was particularly lengthy as well as the staff\nreport; she went to the City Attorney's office to read the opinion within an hour before\nthe meeting started; the lengthy opinion was hard to digest; the City Attorney's\nprocedure assumes that she would only read the opinion once; the City Attorney made\nsome vague comments regarding concerns with leaks coming out of Closed Session;\nthat she has not been accused of a leak; she does not understand why she could not\nhave a copy of the opinion to read at her leisure; that she advised the City Attorney that\nshe had no problems with giving the opinion back; she has no interest in keeping\nconfidential materials; the City Attorney is making it hard for her to do her job; the\nCharter does not state that a Councilmember needs to go to the City Attorney's office to\nread an opinion.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Gilmore's intent is to put the matter on\nan agenda for discussion, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated the matter is hard to discuss at 1:45 a.m.; that she does not think\nthat the City Attorney has violated the terms of the Charter; perhaps Councilmember\nGilmore is looking for clarification on document handling.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n35\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 27, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-16", "page": 35, "text": "Lara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 16, 2021\n24", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-10", "page": 35, "text": "Council.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated signatures must be gathered by 6:00 p.m.\ntomorrow; inquired whether the subcommittee thought of any community signers or\nassumed it would be the Councilmembers.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded since the issue is about good government, he\nwas hoping to have the entire Council sign the argument; stated it does not matter\nwhich side of the question you are on; Ordinance 3148 has things that are impossibly\nwrong to put in the Charter and require an election to fix; as State law changes, the City\nhas to adapt.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested Laura Thomas be the fifth signer.\nCouncilmember Matarrese suggested the argument be left in the Clerk's office for\nanyone to sign.\nThe Clerk stated there is a limit of five signers.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 9:11 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:22 p.m.\nThe City Clerk outlined the options to determine who will sign: defer the decision to the\nsubcommittee; have only four Councilmembers sign; have four Councilmembers sign\nand one other person sign, which would require Council to decide how to select the\nother person.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is happy to let the subcommittee decide who they\nwant as the fifth person or if they even want a fifth person.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated said suggestion is fine with him.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the subcommittee's preference was to have the Council sign;\nshe is open to hearing other Councilmember's preferences.\nMayor Spencer stated Councilmember Oddie suggested having the subcommittee\ndiscuss whether or not to have a fifth person sign.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated four Councilmembers will sign and the subcommittee can\ndecide whether or not a fifth person would sign and who that would be.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Vella expressed support.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval [of having the four Councilmembers sign and\nthe subcommittee decide about a fifth signature].\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJuly 10, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-10.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-06-05", "page": 35, "text": "237\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -JUNE 5, 2018- -5:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:04 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Vice Mayor Vella was present via teleconference from\nthe Hilton at 10000 Beach Club Drive, Myrtle Beach, South\nCarolina 29572.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(18-310) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to\nlitigation pursuant to subdivisions (d)(2) and (e)(1) of Government Code Section\n54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action)\n(18-311) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code section\n54956.8); Property: Northwest Territories, Alameda Point; City Negotiators: Elizabeth D.\nWarmerdam, Acting City Manager; and Jennifer Ott, Director of Base Reuse &\nTransportation Planning; Potential Tenant: East Bay Regional Park District; Issue Under\nNegotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms of Payment. Not heard.\n(18-312) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7 54957;\nTitle/description of positions to be filled: Acting City Manager and City Manager\n(18-313 ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation\npursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of\ncases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action)\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding Public Employee Appointment/Hiring and Initiating Legal\nAction, the City Council gave direction to staff by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Councilmember Matarrese: Aye; Councilmember\nOddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Aye. Ayes: 5; and regarding\nExposure to Legal Action, the City Council gave direction to staff by the following roll\ncall vote: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft: No; Councilmember Matarrese: No;\nCouncilmember Oddie: Aye; Vice Mayor Vella: Aye; and Mayor Spencer: Ayes. Ayes:\n3. Noes: 2.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 5, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-06-05.pdf"}