{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2008-12-03", "page": 4, "text": "|\nSpecial Minutes of the SSHRB, December 3, 2008 Meeting\nDeleted: DRAFT UNTIL\nPage 4\nAPPROVED\nWright - Previously we've been creative, but according to recent interpretation from HUD there needs\nto be economic development / neighborhood development, and it cannot be planning and\nadministrative costs. There is a need for a strong training component.\nWasko - The Finance Project Program does substantial trainings that work with agencies to put\ntogether business plans to look for funding. Put a package together collaboratively.\nJames - When I first got involved with the Koshland grant they were able to bring all these things\ntogether and it was much more vibrant.\nWright - We have stricter parameters now but we will work on being creative.\nBiggs - If we will encourage collaboration, then we should have a way to support that.\nVillareal - The last bullet addresses the need for collaboration, on the other hand if we look at other\nparagraph - that paragraph could address the emphasis on collaboration.\nNielsen - The need she is trying to address is hard to gather data on, but still important. Is there a way\nto emphasize that its really bad and emphasize the need to think creatively?\nVillareal - It is this further collaboration effort that we can build better collaborations.\nMotion - Wasko and Villareal will draft the needs statement including the discussed changes and\nreview each others edits. M/S Soglin, Nielsen and unanimous. Staff provided a deadline.\nPresident Wasko will attend the Council meeting on January 6, 2009 for the public hearing.\n3-C. WORKGROUP STATUS REPORTS: Item held to an upcoming meeting.\n4. BOARD / STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Member James had the opportunity to attend joint\nmeeting of the ACCYF and the Alameda Services Collaborative luncheon. He stated this was a good\nopportunity to see agencies and is interested in seeing different sites and programs.\nMember Biggs visited the Food Bank during their turkey handout. They had 50% increase in people\ngetting turkeys this year, and there were many first timers.\nPresident Wasko stated she attended the Hospital Faire and all the gifts from China were present.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Jim Franz wanted to remind the Board of the Shelter in Place,\nEmergency Preparedness training happening Saturday, December 6th at Immanuel Lutheran Church.\n6.\nADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn at 7:53 p.m. M/S Villareal, Soglin and unanimous.\nRespectfully submitted,\nDeleted: DRAFT UNTIL\nTerri Wright\nAPPROVED\nActing Secretary, Social Services Human Relations Board\nTW:sb\nG:SSHRB\\Packets\\2008\\DEC08\\MinutesSpecial\nF: SSHRB\\2008\\Agendas Packets", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2008-12-03.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2008-12-03", "page": 3, "text": "|\nSpecial Minutes of the SSHRB, December 3, 2008 Meeting\nDeleted: DRAFT UNTIL\nPage 3\nAPPROVED\nHurst - Housing, job training and sustainability, and financial resources.\nWasko - Thank you and maybe we can engage volunteers to recreate the domestic violence task force.\nJulia Brown, Women's Initiative for Self Employment (WISE) and Deepa Patel - They are currently\nreceiving funding from Alameda's CDBG program and these funds are help with their pre-training,\nand expect to start full course work in January. There is a need to support social enterprise because\nthey of the possibility of job loss. The funding of micro enterprise is one of the only areas where there\nis job growth.\nPatel - Started her business with $150.00 after losing a job during the dot.com bust. She was without\nfamily support and no where to go, but knew she wanted to help others. She worked with a law firm\non a project and it was suggested she becoming a consultant. WISE has helped her tremendously to\ngrow her business, get a car and has been in business for 5 years, she has one contract employee and is\nlooking for another. Without WISE support her business would have folded last year.\nWasko - Congratulations on your business success and thank you for sharing your experience.\nLiz Varela, Executive Director, Building Futures with Women and Children (BFWC) - She would like\nto piggyback on what Mr. Franz said on maintaining the safety net services. BFWC truly works well\nwith other safety net providers. The women who come to Midway are in many times in grave danger if\nthey were unable to get shelter.. Midway is a great place to help people rebuild their lives. Varela\nhanded out a story about women from their website. She supports the idea of starting the domestic\nviolence task force again. Where there are funds lacking we should make up for in relationships.\nWasko - Thank you Liz, and to all the speakers.\nBiggs - Given the shift in Federal administration, what does the future entail?\nWright - HUD just lost their Regional Director. It's hard to know with the economy.\nWasko - Pete Stark holds community meetings, CDBG people could talk to him about the formula.\nSpark is very responsive.\nWright - it would be great to remove CDBG public service cap in times of extreme hardships.\nWasko - Our next task is to rewrite the letter particularly with focus areas.\nVillareal - Let's not remove the \"strengthening,\" perhaps something like - to continue to ensure\nthey're doing all they can to better serve clients, or - strengthening and preserving would be a good\nway to, or - to strengthen\nBiggs - Perhaps make reference to the unprecedented strain.\nNielsen - Broaden definition of 'at risk', people who have never before needed services until now?\nSoglin - Separate safety net paragraph and say primary emphasis in on safety net.\nWasko - Do we currently fund collaboration?\nJones - Red Cross is funded for the Services Collaborative.\nJames - At the last meeting there was an emphasis on \"collaborative'.\nWasko - Soglin was suggesting collaboration in his comments.\nSoglin - Prioritizing safety nets, then other issues.\nBiggs - Can we be creative about technical assistance funding to grant writing?", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2008-12-03.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2008-12-03", "page": 2, "text": "|\nSpecial Minutes of the SSHRB, December 3, 2008 Meeting\nDeleted: DRAFT UNTIL\nPage 2\nAPPROVED\nWright - There is a level of duplication in the total, two service providers may count the same\nindividual, but these are low numbers.\nBiggs - Can the language stating \"strengthening safety-net services' be changes to providers are trying\nto maintain the services they have, preserving or maintaining the safety-net?\nJames - How about \"strengthening the current' safety-net?\nWasko - Yes.\nPublic Comment - Speakers:\nJim Franz, Director, American Red Cross - Alameda Service Center: We have almost reached a time\nwhen we have to re-define the term \"at risk\". Recently, he spoke with a single mother who last year\nwas making a great wage and providing for her family and is now on unemployment and her mortgage\nis behind as she was asking for assistance. Last year at this time they had served 800 meals for\nThanksgiving and thought it was extraordinary. This year it was 930. People asking for assistance\nfrom the utility program continues to grow. The PG&E program is almost out of funds. The same\nholds true for the rental assistance program. Shelters throughout the bay area are in trouble due to the\nemergency shelter budget (EHAP) being eliminated at the Federal level. We expect to see pockets of\npoverty to move to central Alameda as we hear landlords aren't able to be as lenient as they used to be\nbecause they have to pay their mortgages. Food, rent and childcare are the basic needs this agency is\nbattling.\nWasko - Thank you for all the work you do.\nLaura Hurst, Family Violence Law Center (FVLC) - Here to ask for support to increase funding for\ndomestic violence services. We are finding that victims are too scared to get a restraining order. They\nwould like to house a domestic violence advocate in our police department as this would increase\nprevention in homicides and families from becoming homeless.\nWasko - Is the FVLC thinking about shifting their funding?\nHurst - No, there is a need for both and additional funding would augment legal services of other\ncounseling and other services.\nWasko - Is there a waitlist? We are trying to assess needs.\nHurst - Not sure there is a waitlist, but they often find that departments are under reporting domestic\nviolence.\nBiggs - How many individuals have you served this quarter and how much is for advocate?\nHurst - FT is $40k., PT advocate would be enough in Alameda. She doesn't have the numbers from\nthe past quarter.\nSoglin - In places without an advocate, does training help?\nHurst - Yes. We've trained all Alameda Police officers, and also doing county-wide patrol officer\ntraining.\nSoglin - What are the ways APD supports domestic violence and how are they organized?\nHurst - The violent crimes unit coordinates with us and because of staffing levels they prioritize felony\ncases.\nWasko - Does the City still have a domestic violence task force?\nWright - No, but staff has been trying to work with FVLC to coordinate with APD and we are\nconsidering reconvening the domestic violence task force.\nJames - What are the other needs of people being victimized?", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2008-12-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 11, "text": "zone residential areas: Madlen Saddik, Alameda Chamber of Commerce.\nStated that she is in favor of the Encinal Terminal project; stated only two of her 14 employees\nlive in Alameda due to the lack of affordable housing; the project offers much needed affordable\nand middle housing and will help meet RHNA numbers; expressed support for the public access\nto the waterfront; urged Council to move forward with the project: Kelly Lux, Alameda Chamber\nof Commerce.\nExpressed support for the Encinal Terminals project; stated that she supports public access to\nthe waterfront; the current conditions are dangerous and the project is a wonderful use of the\nspace: Michelle Morgan, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the land exchange and development of the Encinal Terminals site; stated\nthe site is key for residential development, which will further Alameda's ability to meet the RHNA\nobligation; the City will receive a useful waterfront; the site is ideal for waterfront residential\ndevelopment and a public shoreline; expressed support for a water shuttle landing; urged the\nproject showcase waterfront design; urged Council to approve the land exchange and\ndevelopment proposal: Betsy Mathieson, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the project; urged Council approve the Tidelands exchange; discussed\nthe consequences of not approving the project; stated the City is coming out ahead in the\nexchange; he supports the kayak launch and public trust idea; he would like to see the\ndeveloper increase the density by replacing the townhomes with mid-rise buildings; expressed\nconcern about parking: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nQuestioned whether the planning for the project has taken into account other potential units\nbeing built in Marina Village of it the project is being considered in a vacuum; stated the project\nhas the potential to transform the area; the project gives the City a good chance at meeting the\nRHNA obligation; expressed support for the project; urged Council approval: Bill Pai,\nCommunity of Harbor Bay Isle.\nExpressed support for the project; stated that he applauds the emphasis on the RHNA\nobligation, Housing Element and ramifications of non-approval; discussed his experience with\nthe RHNA obligation process; stated HCD has changed its stance on non-compliance with\nRHNA; HCD has already taken action against cities for non-compliance and will likely impose\nfees; urged Council take the project and run with it: Matt Regan, Bay Area Council.\nExpressed support for the project; stated there is no real reason to reject the project; discussed\nthe shape and value of the project site; expressed concern about not supporting the project;\nstated the vote for the project should be unanimous; the City is not losing anything of value; the\nproject provides benefits to many; he supports a water taxi for the site: Josh Geyer, Alameda.\nStated the project offers workers career pathways, apprenticeship opportunities and healthcare\nbenefits; an agreement has been made; he supports the partnership; the project is well thought-\nout and will play a vital role in the City; it is important to support the land exchange and title\nsettlement agreement; the project will directly improve the lives of hundreds: Vince Sugrue,\nSheet Metal Workers Local Union 104.\nStated approval of the project is important to Alameda historic preservation; the project will\nprovide 589 housing units which can be applied towards RHNA; if the project is not approved,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-07-07", "page": 16, "text": "zero to one vehicle includes children.\nMr. Daisa responded in the negative; stated the statistic is actually 50% of households.\nMr. Daisa stated providing a rapid transit system that serves the entire residency and\nemployees achieves an additional 4% ridership, or 6% or even 8% more ridership from\nexisting residents or employees; the percentages can reduce the cars in the tubes and\nbridges by 600, 900 or 1200 in each peak hour, which is equivalent to increasing the\ncapacity of the tubes by 15% to 30%; if 8% can be achieved, 30% capacity can be\ngained in the tube, which is the equivalent of adding a lane to the tubes; there is a way\nto gain capacity through transit operations; the ferry service is in two phases; phases\none and two of the development use, the current Main Street terminal ferry service the\nnew ferry terminal is constructed in phase three and the two systems from Oakland and\nfrom the Seaplane Lagoon are bifurcated; SunCal has done a financial analysis and will\ntalking to staff and WETA tomorrow; showed maps indicating the existing system and\nthe system after phase three to five; stated an onsite full time TDM Coordinator position\nIs included\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is a kiss and ride\nzone.\nMr. Daisa responded a spouse or significant other drops you off, kisses you goodbye\nand says go make money and I will pick you up when you get back; continued the\npresentation; stated BRT is not just another bus and is really a light rail train on rubber\nwheels; new vehicles, new systems and new technology make BRT work; BRT targets\nchoice riders, not transit-dependent people who always use transit; choice riders are\npeople who own cars but want to choose to use a good, comfortable form of public\ntransportation because it works for them and is attractive; BRT have dedicated lanes on\neither on the inside or the outside of the street; in SunCal's proposal, lanes are probably\non the outside; BRT has very nice stations, which are attractive, comfortable, high-\namenity facilities and use real-time technology like BART, so riders always know how\nlong the next bus will be to the minute; BRT has fast boarding; tickets can be purchased\nbefore getting on the bus and there is loading at both doors; the buses can trigger the\nsignals to move through signals faster; if a dedicated lane is not being used, buses can\nbypass congestion at the worst intersections and get a jump on cars; SunCal has a\npretty comprehensive pedestrian, bicycle and trail network that integrates and connects\nwith the existing Alameda system and provides facilities for the rest of the Island at the\nrecreational and transportation level; TDM is a series of programs, measures,\nincentives, or even disincentives to change peoples' travel behavior; a whole series of\nprograms have been around for decades; TDM works great in some circumstances, and\ndoes not work great in others, which is why projects have to have a menu and need\nflexibility to apply appropriate measures and adjust measures over time; SunCal\nproposes a tier series of measures, which is simply a menu; SunCal would work with\nstaff on implementing measures at different tiered levels; measures will be monitored\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\n15\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJuly 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2020-07-14", "page": 3, "text": "young golfers in, as well as discussions with the junior golf board. The goal is to use\nthe later part of the afternoon to allow juniors and other golfers of any age to allow\nthem to play only three holes with an instructor.\n7-B\nJim's on the Course Restaurant Report\nAmy Wooldridge stated that Jim's on the Course had reopened the outdoor patio, but\nthen had to close last Saturday due to Alameda County being added to the State's\nwatchlist. The restaurant is still open for takeout at this time.\n7-C\nRecreation and Parks Director Report\nAmy Wooldridge stated that they are moving forward with an agreement amendment\nwith Jim's on the Course which will go to City Council on September 15. Once it's\npublished to the public, it will be discussed at the September 8 Golf Commission for\ntheir feedback to be brought to the Council.\nLast Tuesday, City Council awarded the parking lot repair project to Redgwick\nConstruction, and are now coordinating with Greenway and the City Manager, working\non the required utilities to get the best possible product. The funds were set aside in\n2018-2019 from citywide projects in the Capital Improvement budget, not the golf\nfund.. Amy was asked when the project would start, and she stated that she would let\nthem know when she finds out.\n8.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nA moment of silence was held in honor of Nancy Wehr prior to adjournment\n9.\nITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - September 8, 2020\nGreenway Report\nJim's on the Course Report\nRecreation and Parks Director Report\n10.\nANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:10 p.m.\nThe agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the\nAlameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the\nBrown Act.\n3\nGolf Commission Minutes-Tuesday, - July 14, 2020", "path": "GolfCommission/2020-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2011-02-23", "page": 13, "text": "you're fertilizing so many times, you would be able to do that from one year to the\nnext, but when a $25,000 pump breaks down and you add $20,000 to the cart barn,\nso you have over $100,000 with no money budgeted to do that, it's just more\ndeferred maintenance is what it is.\" Lisa Goldman: \"The cart barn allows you to\nmake more in revenue, right?\" Mr. Lillard: \"Right, because you can send the carts\nout twice.\"\nBob Sullwold: \"In evaluating getting into a 30-year lease with Kemper, there are\nresponsiblities here. Number one, why is there this over budget number? The other\npossibility is they are not operating as efficiently as they promised they would. The\nexpenses are higher because they're doing a bad job managing the enterprise. You\nneed to know the answer to that before you decide to do business with that\nenterprise.\"\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\nNone\n7.\nOLD BUSINESS\nNone\n8.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nIncluded in the Commission packet was a memorandum to the Finance Department\nshowing a surcharge payment for January 2011 of $5,749. The year-to-date total to\nthe General Fund is $58,562 for FY 2010/2011.\n9.\nITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA\nStatus Report on Long Term Lease and Mif Albright Negotiations including Golf\nCommission recommendations, if any\nUpdate on Golf Complex Finances\n10.\nANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at 7:46 p.m.\nThe agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\n13\nGolf Commission Minutes-Wednesday, February 23, 2011", "path": "GolfCommission/2011-02-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities", "date": "2016-12-14", "page": 9, "text": "you guys to think about, that signage really is a big disability issue. It's relatively cheap to do, and it\ncould have a big impact on everybody's lives here. Thank you.\nElizabeth Kenny: Thank you very much. If you could just state your name into the mic when you\ntalk. Thank you.\nJoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko: Hi, my name is JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko, and I am a member of this\ncommunity of disability people, and you brought up an amazing point that I had not really processed\nthrough. My disability is muscle spasms, and when I get really stressed, or the weather is cold, heat\nand ice are paramount to my quality of life and it never occurred to me that if the energy went out,\nwhere would I go? I would just panic at home. But going to the police department, fire department,\nthe hospital to have that bit of information. I've been plagued with this for 20 years and it's just really\nvital to have that and so I appreciate that you provided that. And the other concern I have, when that\ninformation came out about providing information, being a person with a disability and wanting to\nhave somebody know that I need help. Maybe some objectives on why are people afraid about\nproviding that information. People pay for services that seniors and people that live by themselves\nthat they pop a button and emergency, your calls are checked in.\nJoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko: There's creative energy and there's got to be a way to overcome that\nobstacle, because yes, I was intimidated and even in my complex I've talked to you a few minutes\nago. Ilive at the Willows, 201 units. There was a point where the office asked us to submit information\nabout \"In the time of an emergency, provide us with what you needed.\" And I didn't trust our\nmanagement, so I did not submit my information. And there were some valid issues about why I\ndidn't trust them, but as a society and a community, that bridge has to be made, because I need to\nknow where I go. At that time, my husband worked the graveyard shift, so I was home by myself at\nnight, he was sleeping, if anything ever happened during that time. There were a couple times when\nI had to call the police and it was really scary, because I was like, \"Well, I can't get to the door because\nI'm immobile and so how are we going to make this happen?'\nJoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko: And everybody has issues and there's got to be a way to invite people. It's\na small group and there's got to be a way to just bridge that gap. Somehow to do it through the\nnewspaper. Next Door is really good. Is that a bell telling me I'm done? Okay, but Next Door is really\nhelpful to communicate with my neighbors about challenges that come up. It's really important to\novercome that just because they say no, don't shut it down. Think outside of the box.\nSharon Oliver: So, we literally only had about four people register, and then a year or two passed,\nthen we went, \"Are they still out there?\" And then we couldn't reach them. Then it was like, \"Well,\nthen the list is old.\" If we had hundreds of numbers, it would have been a different thing. We know\nwe have got to update this list but we couldn't even get a hold of the four.\nJoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko: I know, that's true.\nSharon Oliver: Yes, so we were like, \"This doesn't have enough buoyancy to move forward.\"\nJoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko: Well, how about at the Senior Center? It just occurred to me, I'm dealing\nwith some issues that our community, and inside the condo perhaps could reach out to the Senior\nCenter and to get help. There was a point in our community in our society that the Gray Panthers\nwere alive and well. And it's like what happened to that community of people? Does everybody know\nwho the Gray Panthers were?\nBeth Kenny: Are.", "path": "CommissiononPersonswithDisabilities/2016-12-14.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 12, "text": "yield the desired result; expressed appreciation for the information provided by Mr. Katz;\nquestioned whether the applicants completed the improvement work or whether the\napplications were merely submitted without work; stated that she would like to know the\nstatus of the repairs; she is concerned the formula not achieving the goal of maintaining the\nproperty; one of the not well-liked criteria is that repairs may be amortized beyond 15 years\nin order to keep the rent increase less than 5%; she would like to know some examples with\nreal numbers of what the amortization looks like; 50% of the City's population lives in\nrentals; expressed support for staff returning with permit data for non-rentals; if non-rental\nrepairs are low, then the issue is not rental property related; the CIP might be working and\nrental properties might have a similar repair rate; the goal is to maintain and to keep tenants\nin properties; Council is trying to move forward to find the right spot.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Mr. Katz stated of the nine submissions, one\nhas been conditionally approved, one has been closed by the owner, one is still pending,\nand six have been denied.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the reason for denial.\nMr. Katz responded that he would need to go back and review the individual cases to\ndetermine the reason for denial; stated it is most likely due to the various eligibility\nthresholds for CIP applications.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the response is instructive; part of the challenge is that Council\nwill soon be engaged in budget hearings to discuss the City's use for American Rescue\nPlan Act (ARPA) funds; some of the funding will be directed to helping tenants and\nlandlords to ensure the City is avoiding displacement; the City is also mindful of landlords\nsuffering hardships due to COVID-19; Council will know more when there has been a\nchance to discuss and provide direction; Council is mindful of renter's concerns; expressed\nsupport for more detail being provided; questioned whether there is a way to incentivize\nlandlords to perform necessary repairs; stated the program is elaborate and has many\ndetails; expressed support for a one-page executive summary document at the beginning of\nthe CIP document; stated the information will go a long way to help people understand the\nprocess; expressed support for the document beinguser-friendly;stated the program is very\ncomplicated, which is one of the reasons the program is so infrequently used ; questioned\nwhether enough information and direction from Council has been given for a motion to be\nmade.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of giving direction to staff to come back by the\nend of the calendar year in working to address the varied comments from Council to allow\nfor enough time before a program goes into effect.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated a question has come up that some buildings have long\nand short term rentals; language should be clear that money spent on units being used for\nshort-term rentals, similar to AirBNB, does not count towards the CIP; expressed support for\nany substantive maintenance cost benefitting one or a small section of a building and\nleeway being given by the Program Administrator to assign and assess the pass-through to\nensure tenants not receiving the benefit of the improvements are not paying for the\nimprovement.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-04-14", "page": 2, "text": "years. Many options have been presented regarding modification of the Posey\nTube and freeway exits on 1880. Caltrans has determined that one option, to cut\nthrough the Posey tube and create a \"hard\" right turn upon exiting the tube, is not\nfeasible and was rejected because the tube is not a tunnel and enabling\nmotorists to make a hard right turn could result in an increase of rear-end\naccidents.\nAnother option considered was creating a new on-ramp at 6th and Market\nStreets. Although not as effective as the previous option this option is good for\ntransit (bus/BART) connections and provides multiple options for vehicles. This\nstudy has a greater impact on Oakland since some property owners will be\nimpacted by any proposed solutions. It will probably be 10-20 years before any\nconstruction will begin. It is challenging for cities to continue to rely on \"building\"\ntheir way out of traffic problems. Short-term successes in Alameda may be seen\nthrough project development conditions of approval.\nCity Councilmember's from Alameda and Oakland meet quarterly to discuss\ntransportation issues. This is an ongoing effort and will be a long process.\nBoardmember Ezzy Ashcraft commented that transportation is a regional not just\na local problem. We need to continue to pursue opportunities to get people out\nof their cars.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\nAndrew Thomas advised the Board of a pending design review item for a location\n(Kohl's) at Alameda Towne Centre (ATC).\nPresident Cook asked how the design fits in with the Master Plan Amendment.\nAndrew Thomas responded by saying Alameda Towne Centre's (ATC) Planned\nDevelopment Amendment (PDA) allows for expansion of floor area. ATC can\nintroduce new tenants through the design review process but cannot increase\ntenant space (square footage).\nPresident Cook requested the item be placed on the agenda for the next\nPlanning Board meeting on April 28, 2008.\nPresident Cook inquired about the status of Clif Bar.\nAndrew Thomas responded that Clif Bar was concerned about the lack of food\nchoice options in the area and their employees' ability to bike to work.\nPresident Cook mentioned the board would like to hear about these concerns\nfrom Staff and not from reading it in the newspaper.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nPage 2 of 7", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-04-14.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 16, "text": "years to check in.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the key tenants indicated they want\nthe proposal to move forward to have development that supports their businesses.\n(12-218) Councilmember Johnson moved approval of considering the performance\nevaluation on the closed session agenda [paragraph no. 12- after 10:30 p.m.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he can support Vice Mayor Bonta's suggestion to\ngive further direction to the City Manager to take a last look and have staff come back\nwith options.\nMayor Gilmore questioned whether the City Manager could come up with other options.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Councilmembers would be willing move\nforward if questions are better addressed.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is not opposed to entitlement and getting\nsomething moving; she is concerned about going forward on a wing and a prayer.\nCouncilmember deHaan questioned whether Council would go forward with a different\noption.\nMayor Gilmore reiterated her concerns.\nCouncilmember Johnson questioned whether status quo is risk free.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she is willing to accept a certain amount of risk.\nCouncilmember deHaan discussed reuse of buildings.\nMayor Gilmore moved approval of directing staff to support existing tenants, help them\nto grow their business, look for long term leases, be opportunistic if opportunities come\nthe City's way, and check back in one and a half to two and a half years; and having a\ndiscussion if something changes in the State legislature.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, with amendment to look at potential bonding\nfor infrastructure to increase revenue from existing tenants.\nMayor Gilmore agreed to amend the motion.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether bonding would be for maintaining\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 17, "text": "years and now has a change in use the Old County Health Center is\nback in public use; the process should move forward.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated everyone is saying that it is time to\nget the community involved in understanding the opportunities to\nuse the Carnegie Building and reviewing the feasibility of what has\nto be done to bring the building up to the necessary working level ;\nthe Planning Department would be a great asset in making the\ndetermination.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of allocating $90,000 for a\nfeasibility study to see how a One-Stop Permit Center would work\nand to determine what needs to be done to complete the necessary\nimprovements.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Manager stated the process would be initiated; staff would\ncome back to Council for approval if funds are not sufficient.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the Americans with Disabilities Act access is\nimportant and should be part of the feasibility analysis.\nCouncilmember deHaan concurred with Vice Mayor Tam; stated a\nprocess needs to be established on how to engage the public.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the public needs to be asked about\nthe Carnegie Building use and one-stop permitting details.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested that a community input process be\nestablished to consider other possible uses of the building and to\ndetermine what type of individuals to involve and to establish a\ntimetable.\nThe Planning and Building Director stated proposals would be\nsolicited; a Contract would be brought back to Council for\napproval ; a detailed, public outreach process would be provided.\n(07-013) Ordinance No. 2957, \"Approving Master Plan Amendment MPA-\n06-001 Substituting Office, Retail, Health Club, Residential and/or\nMixed Uses for Approximately 77 Acres of Previously Entitled\nOffice/Research and Development Uses. \" Finally passed;\n(07-013A) Ordinance No. 2958, \"Approving Development Agreement\nAmendment DA-06-0002 to the Development Agreement By and Between\nthe City of Alameda and Catellus Development Corporation, Dated\nJune 6, 2000, as Amended. Finally passed;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-03", "page": 12, "text": "year.\nMayor Johnson requested that the matter be brought back to Council\nin six months to make sure that the fee schedule works as intended.\nCouncilmember Daysog read the resolution paragraph addressing\nadministrative adjustments.\nMayor Johnson stated the intent is to make fees more predictable;\nshe hopes that the fee schedule works as intended.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated past, hard issues have been tackled,\nparticularly the flat rate; he hopes that a proper estimate can be\ngiven for time and materials.\nThe Building Official responded efforts are made to provide proper\nestimates; deposits should cover the full project.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what is the percentage for local fees\non new residential construction.\nTe Building Official responded a Bayport home is valued at $350 to\n$400 based on square footage. fees are about 4% of the value.\n ouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion should\ninclude direction to bring a report back to Council in six months\nto make sure that the fee schedule works as intended, especially\nwith feedback on commercial fees.\nThe City Manager clarified that the fire inspection and alarm fees\nare not included in the resolution.\nCouncilmembers Daysog and deHaan agreed to amend the motion to\nincorporate Councilmember Matarrese's comments and clarification\nthat fire inspection and alarm fees are not included in the fee\nschedule.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(06-504) - Jimmie Lee Marks, Alameda, stated he was representing the\nEncinal Alumni Association: the end of 3rd Street has no name ;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nOctober 3, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-03.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2008-11-19", "page": 4, "text": "year-to-date total to the General Fund is $58,587 for fiscal year 2008/2009.\n10.\nITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA\nUpdate on monthly pass sales\nUpdate on marketing for weekday play\nUpdate on the rate increases.\n11. ANNOUNCEMENTS/ADJOURNMENT\nThe Meeting was adjourned at 7:32 PM.\nThe agenda for the meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in accordance with the Brown Act.\nChuck Corica Golf Complex\nPage 4\n11/19/08\nGolf Commission Minutes", "path": "GolfCommission/2008-11-19.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2015-02-26", "page": 2, "text": "year, it will be held at Alameda High School and the committee would welcome participation from SSHRB\nMembers. The Oakland / East Bay Gay Men's Chorus (OEBGMC) is scheduled to perform, and other event\ncomponents are currently being discussed. It was also suggested that the Board / ATAH might help organize a\nGay Pride Month event in June, which would include the reading of a proclamation.\nThe discussion returned to Member Williams' idea to have a table at the Park Street Spring Festival coming\nup in May. It was agreed that a brief survey, asking passersby to share what they perceive to be our\ncommunity's needs, should be developed. It was suggested that we could hang our SSHRB banner and add\nballoons and food to help draw attention to the booth. Staff shared a copy of a SSHRB brochure that had been\nused in the past. Members would take turns staffing the booth during the two-day event. Member Williams\noffered to create a draft survey and work on updating the brochure.\nMember Blake left at 8:00 p.m.\nA motion was made to:\n1. Reach out to the AHMDC and offer the Board's support in planning and executing its event.\n2. Explore holding a Gay Pride Month event in June, which would include the reading of a proclamation.\n3. Develop a community needs survey, update the SSHRB brochure, and participate in May's Park Street\nSpring Festival.\nM/S Williams / Hyman Unanimous (6-0)\nPresident Biggs continued the discussion of future activities, reminding the Board of the commitment to\nundertake a second homeless count in late July.\nMember Williams shared information regarding Berkeley's Bay Area Rainbow Day Camp, a program whose\nmission is \"To empower gender expansive youth to practice gender self-determination in order to live\nauthentically and joyfully within their communities\" She asked that the Board help get the word out regarding\nthis program, and consider supporting them in other ways. Member suggestions included asking ARPD to\ninclude information regarding the program in its flyers or on its website, distributing its flyer at the Park Street\nSpring Festival, and helping them raise funds, possibly with an OEBGMC concert in June.\nWhile the camp is in Berkeley, it welcomes all gender expansive youth, including those in Alameda.\nQuestions included how we the Board might identify the number of gender expansive youth in Alameda, if\nother agencies are aware of this program, and if there is a process to refer youth to the program.\nMember Sorensen reminded the Board that the Jam at Neptune Beach in June is also an opportunity\nto\npublicize SSHRB and conduct the survey.\nA motion was made to:\n1. Have a presence at the Jam at Neptune Beach event in June similar to the one being planned for the\nPark Street Spring Festival.\n2. Explore opportunities to publicize and support Berkeley's Bay Area Rainbow Day Camp for gender\nexpansive youth, including holding a fundraiser in June to create camp scholarships for Alameda\nyouth.\nM/S Hyman / Sorensen Unanimous (6-0)\n4.\nBOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n2", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2015-02-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-04-19", "page": 7, "text": "year reprieve; suggested a Town Hall meeting be held regarding the\nferry system in three to four months; stated that some riders feel\nout of the loop regarding ferry issues; noted that a Town Hall\nmeeting would provide a better sense of timetables for improving\nferry services and costs issues; suggested a more formal way of\ncommunicating with riders be developed by the Transportation\nCommission or an adhoc committee that reports to City Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Daysog;\nsuggested that the Town Hall meeting occur soon; stated that the\ncity cannot afford to lose the ferry service; traveling across the\nBay Farm Island Bridge would affect commuters and is unacceptable:\nstated that informing commuters that everything will be done to\nkeep the ferry in service is an urgent matter and maintains\ncredibility for transit solutions at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is in favor of having the Town\nHall meeting sooner, but that it is important to collect\ninformation for presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not see any advertising for the\nferries; noted that fuel cost issues should be investigated; stated\nthat the City will not lose the ferry service; that there is a\nlong-term possibility that the Water Transit Authority will operate\nthe\nferries; the City needs to continue operating successfully\nuntil then; there should be a Council briefing on the state of the\nferries and then a public workshop.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that the maintenance issues are\nimportant; noted if the ferry is out of service, commuters find\nother means of commuting and it is difficult to get them back once\nhabits have changed.\nCouncilmember Daysog suggested that the Council Meeting be the Town\nHall meting.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that there was a fare box increase of\n25% and 40% is needed; the capacity of the ferry service and\nparking limitation is a difficult dynamic to solve; that the\nAlameda/Oakland Ferry Service was successful because parking\nspaces were increased and ridership improved.\nMayor Johnson stated that she has never seen the parking lot full;\nnoted that more riders are needed; stated that ridership went down\nsignificantly after the dock closure.\nThe Acting City Manager stated that staff worked very hard and came\nup with a solution that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nApril 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-04-29", "page": 9, "text": "year projection, which compares OPEB pay go and the trust fund; the trust fund would\nwork starting in 2019, but would go to $0 by 2034; the idea he has relates to the 1079\nretirement account, on which the City currently spends almost $2 million annually; the\ntrust fund is undercapitalized and needs an additional source of revenue; the 1079 fund\nshould be reviewed as a supplement; figures staff provided on the salary increases\nhave calmed him down; the trust fund needs to be comprehensive, improved more and\nsupplemented.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether staff could comment on the scenario proposed\nto take funds from the 1079 plan as premiums go down.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the amount is not going down very much.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's request, the Assistant City Manager\nexplained the 1079 plan; stated the annual change could be researched.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the line item could be extended at the same amount and\nany difference could go into the trust; inquired whether doing so would be separate or\nprecluded from the action tonight.\nThe City Manager responded the issue is separate; stated the 1079 plan is funded by\nthe General Fund; as the figure goes down, the money becomes available and Council\ncould decide to use it to fund the City's $250,000 annual contribution or additional pre-\nfunding; labor could be re-engaged about the City adding the funding and ask what they\nare willing to give.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter should be discussed as part\nof the budget.\nThe City Manager responded the amount is not a big ticket item and is not going down\nenough to have an impact; stated as the amount decreases, it should not be used on\nadditional programs, but should be used to address long term obligations.\nCouncilmember Daysog the amount was $4 million in 2003 and is down to $1.8 million\nnow; the amount should be locked in and the difference should be used.\nThe City Manager noted the Council might want to use the funds for PERS smoothing.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated figuring it out takes time.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the City Manager stated nothing needs\nto be negotiated as long as the City is meeting its obligations to the retirees; that he is\nsuggesting labor should be engaged if Council wants to use the funds to supplement\nthe OPEB trust.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he does not want the idea used to open bargaining\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 29, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-04-29.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-04-18", "page": 4, "text": "year funding; allocation adjustments would need to be made based on\nthe funding received.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated some projects are long-range, such as\nthe Woodstock to Webster Street Project.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated only social\nservice contracts are on the two-year funding cycle.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the two-year funding cycle provides an\nelement of stability for non-profits; he supports the two-year\nfunding cycle.\nMayor Johnson stated she is happy the Woodstock to Webster Street\nProject has CDBG funding; the Council supports the project and\nfeels strongly about moving forward as quickly as possible.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked the SSHRB for recommendations;\nstated the SSHRB would be tapped to monitor the progress; decreased\nfunding is a possibility next year.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1. ]\n(06-207) Public Hearing to consider an amendment to Master Fee\nResolution No. 12191 to Adjust Appeal Fees to the Planning Board\nand City Council; and\n(06-207A) Resolution No. 13945, \"Amending Master Fee Resolution No.\n12191 to Revise Fees Charged for Appeals to the Planning Board and\nto the City Council. Adopted.\nThe Building and Planning Director provided a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated that San Jose's flat fee is $1,925 plus time\nand materials; she does not like the current system and would\nprefer a flat fee; cost recovery is not an issue for her; detailed\naccounting would need to be provided to the appellant if the City\nwere to charge for time and materials.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how many appeals were filed in\n2005, and whether the time charged was for salary or hourly\nemployees.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded that 13 appeals were\nfiled in 2005; stated the average cost was $1,061; the $100 per-\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nApril 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-03-20", "page": 7, "text": "year assumptions.\nMs. Mayer stated the information will be included in the budget workshop.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the transfer tax includes the recent transfer\ntax from Site A.\nMs. Mayer responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the amount will be added in.\nMs. Mayer responded the transfer tax will be added; stated the actuals were based on\nJune through December 2017 and Site A had not occurred.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired when the budget workshop would be, to which the Acting City\nManager responded the end of May is the possible date.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired where public employee raises are posted.\nThe Human Resources Director responded the salary schedules are posted on the City\nwebsite.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether retail stores closing is being taken into consideration\nmoving forward with regards to sales tax.\nThe Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMs. Mayer continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why there is an increase in expenses in year\n2041.\nMs. Mayer responded the increase is based on actuarial science.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the information assumes staffing levels.\nMs. Mayer responded the information is based on the City's employment base at the\ntime of the actuarial evaluation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the $203,000 expenditure for Council\nreferrals, the cannabis program and the North Housing Memorandum of Understanding\n(MOU) would be paid by the cannabis licensing and application fees.\nMs. Mayer responded the expenditure funds upfront cost before the fees are collected.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the $75,000 for the Emergency\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMarch 20, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-11-28", "page": 7, "text": "year and they are around $400,000 short. She asked staff if they considered phasing as part of\nthe project.\nStaff Payne replied staff should have the funding without seeking additional grants. A large\nnumber of monies would come from Measure B Bicycle/Pedestrian pass through and Vehicle\nRegistration Fee pass through monies.\nStaff Naclerio replied that the City is looking to construct this project within the grant deadlines.\nUntil the bids come in, the City will not know what funds are needed. The City recently\nreceived Vehicle Registration Fee monies. If used, then City would have to reduce its\nresurfacing project funding.\nCommissioner Schatmeier echoed the tremendous effort made by staff to pull all of the\ncommunity's comments together. He spoke about a public comment regarding signage. He\nwondered whether the Commission would see appropriate wayfinding signage included in the\nproject.\nStaff Naclerio said signage requested by tonight's speaker is not included in the project\ncurrently.\nCommissioner Schatmeier questioned the bus shelters on Webster Street and Park Street. He\nassumed that the shelters were funded and maintained by the business association.\nStaff Naclerio replied no.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked if the City maintains the shelters.\nStaff Naclerio replied yes the City erected and maintains them.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that the bus shelters should be constantly maintained or they\nwould detract from the project.\nCommissioner Vargas encouraged staff to find additional funds for the project. He considered\nsafety as an important factor for the project as well as personal safety while riding a bike and the\nbicycles themselves.\nCommissioner Miley made a motion to approve staff recommendations. Commissioner Bellows\nseconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.\nPage 7 of 15", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-11-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CivilServiceBoard", "date": "2012-06-06", "page": 6, "text": "wrongly laid-off on the basis of not having an equal opportunity through the process.\nMr. Wong thanked the Board for their time and hopes they will make the right decision.\nMs. Marcia Tsang, former ARPD Recreation Program Coordinator in charge of Fee Classes\nand Facilities Rentals, agreed with what Ms. Blumkin and Mr. Wong had stated. She highly\nrecommends that the Board review how they selected current program coordinators and\nshe believes it was not a fair process after hearing from the supervisor and managers that\nthey used to work with and what they had been told in the office and how the process was\ndone.\nPresident Peeler invited Chris Low, Senior Management Analyst, to provide his information.\nMr. Low stated that he was providing information on the recent work force change\nimplemented in ARPD, the subsequent recruitment and selection process, and personnel\nappointments to Recreation Services Specialists.\nPart of what has already been presented by Mr. Gossman, Ms. Blumkin, Mr. Wong, and\nMs. Tsang is that yes, on March 2, 2012 the Human Resource Director informed Linda\nJustus, ACEA President, advising her of the City's intent to recommend and implement a\nreorganization of ARPD which included eliminating four Recreation Program Coordinator\npositions, creating a new classification of Recreation Services Specialist and finally\nrecruiting and appointing three individuals to that new classification. Implementation of the\nwork force change and filling of the Recreation Services Specialist positions would be the\nfirst steps of reorganizing ARPD toward a model of maximum cost recovery with no effect\non front-line services.\nThe parties met and conferred, in good faith, regarding the impacts of the reorganization on\nApril 17, 2012.\nThe initial information to ACEA was on March 2, 2012. On April 3, 2012, the City Council\napproved a work force change in ARPD by amending the ACEA salary schedule to include\nthe salary range for Recreation Services Specialist. A number of folks who are in\nattendance today also attended that Council meeting.\nAs a result of Council's action, on April 4, 2012 a promotional recruitment was posted. The\nHuman Resources Department received six applications. Application materials were\nscrutinized to make sure that the folks who applied did meet the minimum qualifications for\nthe Recreation Services Specialist and all were invited to participate in the selection\nprocess, which they did.\nThe recruitment closed on April 11, 2012 and on April 12, 2012 the applicants supplemental\nquestionnaire responses were redacted of any personal identifying information and sent to\ntwo external subject matter experts to be evaluated objectively. One of those individuals\nwas named previously and she is with the East Bay Regional Park District. The second\nperson who was not identified works for the Hayward Area Recreation District.\nPage -6-\nG:Personnel\\CSBVA Minutes/201 Minutes/2012-06-06 Special CSB Minutes-Draft", "path": "CivilServiceBoard/2012-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2021-06-14", "page": 2, "text": "written communications had attachments that had not been included. He requested that\nfor future meetings that the attachments please be included with the written\ncommunication.\nZac Bowling thanked the HAB for their recent decision about the proposed development\nat the McKay property. He believed the decision was thoughtful and the HAB had\nconsidered all the facts and the true historical nature of the site. He also acknowledged\nthat his friend Alfred Twu wrote a children's book \"RHNA: The House that Makes New\nFriends\" that explained California's housing needs and development.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR\nNone.\n7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n7-A 2021-1015\nPublic Hearing on the Alameda General Plan Update.\nDirector Thomas introduced the item and gave a presentation. The staff report and\nattachments can be found at\n ttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4973464&GUID=3EA90382-\n595E-46CF-ACBO-EC556F65D2AC&FullText=1.\nPresident Teague reminded both boards that this was not an action item. He then opened\nthe public comments.\nBrendan Sullivan said he was pro-building and pro-housing. He wanted the General Plan\nto provide a clear strategy for prioritizing locations for RHNA mandated units. He\nrecommended Alameda Point and the Northern Waterfront as possible development sites.\nHe also encouraged the City to get the Navy to lift the Alameda Point Housing\nDevelopment Cap. He believed that upzoning historical neighborhoods should be a last\nresort.\nCarmen Reid asked that they not increase the two-story height limit. She believed that too\nmany height increases in historic areas would degrade the area's sense of time and place.\nShe also believed height increases in historic areas would encourage the disruption of\narchitectural character. She believed it was very important for Alameda to maintain its\nhistoric character because it is the main attraction for living in and visiting Alameda.\nZac Bowling mentioned an email he had submitted, he also echoed the comments made\nby Dylan Parson, Renewed Hope, and Bike Walk Alameda. He said since this plan spans\n20 years it did a good job for the first 15 but was concerned with the nature of RHNA\nwhether the City can actually catch up to the housing demand. He agreed with the\nproposed plans around Park St and the transit corridors and that the height increases\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 2 of 14\nJune 14, 2021", "path": "PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-16", "page": 28, "text": "write a memo indicating areas in which advice could be given along the lines the City\nAttorney mentioned to begin to address the issue that was raised by the Committee\nmembers about the criminalization of poverty.\nThe City Attorney stated a section on the topic can be included when reports return to\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated an issue somewhat tied to the matter is diversion\nprograms and traffic enforcement, such as whether tinted windows need to be enforced\nwhen other drivers are speeding.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of directing staff to identify a traffic\nenforcement policy that focuses on safety related citations, as well as any diversion\nideas within traffic enforcement and working with the Transportation Commission; in\naddition, he would suggest getting a report back on Universal Basic Income (UBI); he\nheard a lot of support for the conversation; he did not hear Council take up his idea for a\ncatalytic converter rebate or other ideas to avoid crimes; noted the Review Committee\nwill take a long time to get going and that he would like the City Manager to return with\nideas in the short term about how the City will shift and change review of the practices\nof the Police Department so there is civilian review out of the City Manager's office; he\ndoes not know what it looks like and will leave it up to the City Manager; he would like a\nreport back on the matter as well.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated catalytic converters are an important issue; she\nwould like add that the City support making it so that catalytic converters cannot be\nturned in; other States are starting to do so and the legislature should be asked to look\ninto making it illegal for scrap metal people to purchase catalytic converters.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is happy to amend the motion to add the\nmatter to the Legislative Agenda; he thinks there already are a lot of rules around it, but\nhe is not an expert.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the catalytic converter shield\nrebate; stated that she is not sure if it was included in the motion.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated he left it in the motion as something staff could come\nback with and ideas how to do, along with other crime prevention ideas.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the intent for traffic related issues which are\nnot safety related, such as non-moving vehicular violations, whether Officers would not\nenforce violations; stated his intent is that the Officer still enforces it, but per the advice\ncoming from the City Attorney's office something other than issuing a citation can be\ndone; the Officers still need to inform people about violations.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated his motion included direction for staff to come back\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n28\nMarch 16, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2016-06-27", "page": 6, "text": "would use. He said they would not have grey water systems but would have purple pipe\ninstalled with the project.\nPresident Knox White asked why some of the smaller streets have trees on only one side.\nStaff Member Thomas said that the street plan has been separated from the buildings and\nwould be coming back for its own review and approval.\nPresident Knox White opened the public hearing.\nKaren Bey thanked the developer and team for a great project. She said she encourages\napproval of the designs for Blocks 6,7, & 10.\nPresident Knox White closed the public hearing.\nBoard Member Sullivan said she was concerned with the California pepper trees and how\nthey would be handled. She said the wooden panels on Block 7 did not look integrated\nand would not age well.\nBoard Member Mitchell said he likes the changes to Block 6. He said Block 7 has a good\ndesign and is okay with the wood paneling. He said he has some concerns with how the\nutility boxes are ultimately handled. He said he liked the flexibility of the spaces in Block\n10. He said he wanted to make sure there was drinking fountain access. He said he is\nready to see all three move forward.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster thanked the teams for all the work they have put into these\nbuildings. He said he liked the design of Block 6. He said as you turn the corner there\ncould be some more differentiation between units on Block 6. He said he liked how Block\nApproved Minutes\nPage 6 of 9\nPlanning Board Meeting\nJune 27, 2016", "path": "PlanningBoard/2016-06-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-12-10", "page": 2, "text": "would take longer to define. He noted that such changes to the Building Code could take\na long time, following a lot of community discussion.\nBoard member Lynch suggested that there were avenues available to the leadership of the\nCity that may be explored in addition to this effort. He noted that some cities that have\nadopted green principles and policies without having a green building ordinance. He\nsuggested that the City leaders explore executive orders, in light of ordinances being\npassed, that while moving forward with public buildings, that they shall meet a certain\nthreshold. He noted that department heads can issue policy papers that as new permits\ncome forward, that define what they would be looking for that would be consistent with\nthe Uniform Building Code as the process moves forward.\nb.\nZoning Administrator Report\nMr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATION: None.\n8.\nCONSENT CALENDAR:\nNone.\n8-A.\nPLN07-0059 (Use Permit) - BurgerMeister 2315 Central Avenue. The\napplicant requests a Use Permit for extended hours of operations from 11 am - 2\nam Monday through Sunday pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A(c)(1)(a), and use of an\noutdoor patio for up to 24 seats pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A(c)(1)(b). The site is\nlocated within a C-C-T, Community Commercial Theater Zoning District. (SW)\nThe Zoning Administrator has referred this item to the Planning Board.\nThis item was moved to the Regular Agenda.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was enthusiastic about the theater project in\ngeneral, and believed that this restaurant would be a positive addition. She was concerned\nabout extending the hours of operation to 2:00 a.m. She noted that the restaurant's\nwebsite identified three other San Francisco/Daly City locations, all of which closed by\n10 or 11 p.m. She understood the late closing was related to the theater, but was not sure\nthat families would be out that late; she also inquired how late AC Transit operated in\nthat area. She suggested that a closing time of 11:00 p.m. or midnight would be more\nappropriate for the Park Street district.\nIn response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand regarding the closing time for La\nPinata, Board Member Lynch replied that it was open until 3:00 a.m.\nMs. Wolter noted that the applicant requested the closing time.\nThe public hearing was opened.\nPage 2 of 12", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-12-10.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2015-10-14", "page": 5, "text": "would take a little bit more time; stated the criteria in Sunshine Ordinance Section 2-\n92.9 was met.\nMr. Klein responded the language specifies the response has to address by whom,\nwhen and how the request will be fulfilled.\nCommissioner Dieter stated that she is reading Section 2-92.9, which states a request\nto inspect or obtain copies of public records that is submitted to any department or\nanybody shall be satisfied no later than 10 business days unless the requester is\nadvised in writing within three business days that additional time is needed to determine\nwhether the request for records is likely to comprise a voluminous amount of separate\nand distinct writings.\nCommissioner Bonta inquired if Section 2-92.5 is being referenced, which indicates a\nrequest for information to any agent of the City requires the agent to respond to said\nrequest within three business days by providing or explaining how, when and by whom.\nMr. Klein responded in the affirmation; stated said Section is the one in his complaint.\nVice Chair Foreman stated that he thought the issue was frivolous when he first looked\nat it; however, the more he reviews it, the more he is a little bit concerned; he\nunderstand Mr. Klein received the documents in time; Mr. Klein is not complaining about\nthat; he is putting himself in Mr. Klein's shoes; a response was due in three days; the\nresponse came in on the third day, which is perfectly okay; the response is clarification\nis needed; Mr. Klein wrote back less than two hours later asking the Attorney to tell him\nwhat is unclear; in hindsight from the 16th, Attorney Cohen could have very easily met\nthe three day requirement and still could have asked for the extension; that he does not\nhave a problem with staff asking for the extension; these are emails and over 400\npages, which might include privileged material; he has no problem whatsoever with the\nextension; if he were in Mr. Klein's shoes, he would say the Attorney is dragging his\nfeet; he does not know why the Attorney was dragging his feet; it may be totally\ninnocent; maybe he was just going away for the weekend, but he is dragging his feet;\nthat he does not want the public or anyone asking for documents to feel like they have\nto drag the documents out of the City; he is concerned because clearly the three day\ntimeline could have been met.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated when a complaint has been filed under the\nordinance, the Commission hears the evidence and arguments and has to render a\nformal written decision on the matter; staff needs the Commissions direction.\nCommissioner Tuazon stated the way everyone communicates now with text and email\nis so easy to just write something that causes more questions; if he asks somebody a\nquestion through email, the response comes back with more questions or creates more\nproblems instead of addressing the issue; people need to be very careful when\nanswering an email; he is not saying that Mr. Cohen was reckless here; however, he did\nnot address the whom, when and how.\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nOctober 14, 2016\n5", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2015-10-14.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-07-21", "page": 7, "text": "would read: \"residential property means any housing unit including a room or group of\nrooms designed and intended for occupancy by one or more persons, or a mobile\nhome\".\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what data will Council receive in December.\nThe Community Development Director responded Council would receive a quantitative\nstudy about impacts of rising rents for Alameda renters; stated the consultant will look at\nimpacts by tenure, gender, age, and ethnicity; Council could direct staff on next steps in\nterms of policy recommendations, based on the quantitative data.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the analysis could include a moratorium if wide-\nspread rent increases are found, to which the Community Development Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like to see a wide range of policy options for\nCouncil to address the issue.\nThe Community Development Director stated the ordinance requires staff to report\nannually; staff will have data points in 12 months.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated it makes sense for Council and the community to have\nmore input in selection of members RRAC members; he would like a public application\nprocess with public interviews.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Oddie about the\nselection process; stated good, workable solutions are found if the Council and\ncommunity work together.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved introduction of the rent increase ordinance with the\nmodification to remove the definition of a housing unit and to include the definition of a\nresidential property as stated by the Community Development Director [\"residential\nproperty means any housing unit including a room or group of rooms designed and\nintended for occupancy by one or more persons, or a mobile home\"].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n***\nCouncilmember Daysog left the dais at 9:01 p.m. and returned at 9:02 p.m.\n***\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance creating the RRAC.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJuly 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-07-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 7, "text": "would not include the statutory language in the Use of Force policy and is including \"or\nunreasonable.\"\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the section relates to Policy 300.3.\nVice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative; inquired whether the statutory language can be\nplaced after: \"or unreasonably impair.\"\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Vice Mayor Vella stated the language is included\nin AB 490; the terms \"reasonably\" and \"unreasonably\" are used throughout policies based on\ndifferent legal standards and reasons; questioned whether there is legal reason to object to or\nuse the statutory language.\nThe City Attorney stated that he has no concerns with Vice Mayor Vella's proposed changes;\nCouncil may insert the language as proposed.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated Government Code Section 7286.5 contains the desired\nlanguage.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the text would read: \"a law enforcement agency shall not authorize\ntechniques or transport methods that involve a substantial risk of positional asphyxiation.\"\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the policy would read: \"Officers are not authorized to use\nany restraint or transportation method that involve a substantial risk of positional asphyxia or\nunreasonably impair an individuals' breathing,' to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Police Chief stated the positional asphyxia language was removed to address his concerns.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on concerns related to confusion.\nThe Police Chief stated the direction of the original language was that terms, such as positional\nasphyxia, restraint asphyxia and excited delirium, all lead to an outcome that is dangerous to\nthe public; regardless of the terms, his direction is that Officers not do anything which puts\nsomeone at risk; he does not want Officers to do anything which will restrict breathing;\nexpressed support for adding the Council proposed language to the policy; stated that he\noriginally utilized the term for consistency.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed support for including the language of: \"substantial risk of, or\nunreasonable\nstated that she agrees with the Police Chief swapping out terms relative to\nbreathing.\nThe City Attorney recommended adding definitional language from the statute if the term\n\"positional asphyxia\" is taken out; stated the definitional language provides a caveat that if an\nOfficer places someone in a compressed airway situation, the person must be monitored; the\nadded policy language should read: \" without reasonable monitoring for signs of loss of\noxygen. if the policy copies the statutory text, there is no need for change; however, the\ndefinitional language should be included; discussed an Officer effectuating an arrest with\nactions that create risk; stated the Officer's constant monitoring of the arrestee, comports with\nFourth Amendment standards and should go back into the policy.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-05-06", "page": 4, "text": "would not be comfortable trying to overturn the will of the voters with a democratic process\nby writing into the Charter something that would usurp the political voice of the\nconstituents; the right to vote is very sacred and should be upheld to the highest extent\npossible; there have been a number of cases of political intrigue that have happened over\nthe years; Alameda's Charter needs to stand up to Constitutional muster and Council\nneeds to be thoughtful about what goes into it; being a Charter City there are a number\nof areas where Council can legislate, but there are also areas that are precisely and\nexplicitly carved out under the Constitutions of the United States and State of California;\nsuggested removing gender terms; stated language should be changed throughout; she\nis willing to support Vice Mayor Knox White's proposal; the term \"influencing\" is overbroad\nand important to deal with as there are a lot of things that are not ill-intended that could\nfall under influencing.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he concurs with Councilmember Vella's comments; the\nissue is two and a half years old; he wants to frame his remarks about moving forward;\nhe appreciates the language proposed by Vice Mayor Knox White, but wants to focus on\nwhat he thinks is the most important sentence in that the City Council may further\nimplement the section by ordinance, resolution or its Rules of Conduct; the Code of\nConduct needs to be brought back in order for the public to see the big picture; it outlines\nthe levels of inquiry and discipline; keeping both together are critical to having the public\nunderstand that Council takes the issue seriously; implementing the recommendations of\nthe Grand Jury in a way that improves City government is important; the Constitution\nexists to control the worst impulses of politicians; the Constitution has a due-process\nclause; one of the weaknesses in the alternative proposal is that there is a mechanism to\nremove someone just based on an accusation; he appreciates the statements made in\nthe Jenkins report; quoted some of the language; stated an extra statutory recall provision\nis not appropriate; care needs to be taken in the future not to vest political power because\nthere could be the tyranny of the majority; Council needs to protect the rights of any future\nCouncilmember and the rights of their constituents; he looks forward to the Code of\nConduct.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she concurs with Councilmembers Vella and Oddie and\ndoes not favor a recall election be a part of the modification; care should be taken to be\nnon-partisan as possible; it should not be up to a City Council whether or not to pursue a\nspecial election; in addition to usurping the rights of voters to choose, special election\ncosts need to be recognized; staying away from selective enforcement is important; she\nprefers a simpler and straight forward method of drafting regulations so it is easily\nunderstood and not ambiguous; addressed issues raised by public comment about the\ntiming of the special meetings; stated direction was given to Council in July, 2019 at a\npublic meeting with ample opportunity for public comment; the three Councilmembers\nwho were able to vote accepted the findings of the Grand Jury and agreed to investigate\nand make amendments so the Charter delineates specific types of misconduct that\nconstitute a violation, as well as outline an enforcement process; the Vice Mayor's\nproposed language changes do so; Council respects the right of the voters; Charter\nprovisions need to be amended by a vote of the people; Council plans to meet in June to\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMay 6, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-11-24", "page": 2, "text": "would need additional support for users of the ferry. Mr. Ernst replied that all future\nlandscaping will be drought-tolerant, and said that two crosswalks had been added to\naccommodate people coming from the ferry, and existing shuttles would be used to bring\nworkers to the site.\nBoard Member Tang liked the plans presented, and especially the color of the building.\nBoard Member Burton said the building was attractive and a positive addition to the VF\ncampus. He asked if the wooden deck could be continued all the way to the ground. He also\nnoted about feedback from BikeWalk Alameda, and asked that bike parking be located in\nfront of the front entrance.\nBoard Member Knox White asked about some of the doors on the building plans, on North\nLoop Rd.\nMr. Ernst indicated that the door was a required emergency exit. He asked Mr. Thomas\nabout clarification about bicycle parking in the Draft Resolution.\nVice President Alvarez appreciated that VF Outdoors is expanding their presence in\nAlameda.\nPresident Henneberry agrees with everyone's remarks.\nBoard Member Burton motioned to approve with modification to the condition of approval for\nbicycle parking recommended by Board Member Knox-White. Board Member Knox White\nseconded the motion. The motion carried, 5-0.\n7.B. 2014-1091\nPLN14-0305-2350 Harbor Bay Parkway - Applicant: Mina Patel. The applicant requests\napproval of Final Development Plan and Design Review to allow the construction of\n105-room, five story hotel. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality\nAct (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 155332 In-Fill Development Projects.\nThe Board motioned to continue this item at the Staff's request\n7.C. 2014-1094\nParcel Map 10263- 2531/2533 Clement Avenue-PLN14-0363-Applicant: Clement\nAvenue Property, LLC. A proposed parcel map application to subdivide a 6,749 square\nfoot property into two parcels, located approximately 153 feet southwest of the intersection\nof Clement Avenue and Broadway. This project is exempt from the California Environmental\nQuality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 155332 In-Fill Development Projects.\nStaff requests a continuance to the Planning Board Meeting of December 8, 2014.\nBoard approved continuance.\n8. MINUTES:\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 3\nNovember 24, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-11-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 9, "text": "would make the City less competitive.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would be the average public safety retirement benefit for\n2% at 50.\nMr. Bartel responded the benefit would depend upon retirement age; stated currently,\nthe average pension benefit is approximately $100,000 and would drop by\napproximately 10%; the benefit would be substantially less by retiring at 50; generally,\nfire fighters retire closer to 55; police retire between 53 to 54.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether any other municipalities are looking at different\nretirement plans other than PERS; further inquired what would happen to PERS [if cities\nwithdrew from PERS].\nMr. Bartel responded very few; stated the challenge of pulling out of PERS is that\nwithdrawal is very expensive; PERS has an efficient percentage of the City's assets\ngoing toward expenses; PERS administrative expenses are low; going to another plan\nwould be amazingly more expensive; withdrawal costs would depend upon the\nwithdrawal method; withdrawing and taking all asset liability would result in taking the\nCity's market value of assets, not actuarial value of assets; the City would be 65%\nfunded instead of 90%; PERS population is one-third State, one-third non-certificated\nschool employees, and one-third public agencies; schools would not have the ability to\npull out of PERS; the State would not pull out; one-third of assets would be pulled if all\npublic agencies pulled out and PERS would still do just fine; the City would have the\nresponsibility to provide the current benefit formula for current employees; withdrawal\nwould be expensive and painful; that he is not aware of an efficient way to withdraw.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(10-292) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14453, \"Authorizing Collection of\nDelinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts by Means of the Property Tax\nBills.\" Adopted.\nThe Public Works Director provided handouts and gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nOpponent (Not in favor of resolution): Pom Il Song.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the\nhearing.\nMayor Johnson stated what has been done in the past has worked.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-06-04", "page": 4, "text": "would make a motion to have staff review the issue and bring it back on the next\nagenda.\nThe City Clerk responded said process is how referrals have been done in recent\nhistory.\nMayor Gilmore inquired the status and timing on the Bill.\nMr. Oddie responded the Bill has passed the Assembly and is currently in the Senate;\nthere is time.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council should stick to the process.\nCouncilmember Chen concurred with Mayor Gilmore; stated staff should review the\nlegislation and come back with a recommendation to the Council.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of staff reviewing the resolution with the Council\nconsensus of supporting AB1324, make any adjustments and bring it to the next\npossible meeting.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 4, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-06-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-07-01", "page": 18, "text": "would like to review the fee structure, particularly the $5 Junior\nfee; the Golf Course supports junior programs and seniors; the\nGeneral Fund anticipates a $500,000 shortfall next year; the RFP\nprocess would take six months to a year; once something is\ncontracted out, it is never gotten back; he was hoping to get more\ninformation on marketing and capital improvements for the existing\noperation.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of seeking both operation and\nmanagement proposals.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated full time management is needed in the\ninterim period; some improvements can be made on a daily basis with\ncurrent staff.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether Councilmember deHaan's motion was\nto issue a RFP to secure a long-term and interim operator.\nCouncilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative stated that he\nwished the original report had been included.\nThe City Manager stated staff recommends a RFP for a long-term\noperator and an interim operator for operations and management.\nMr. Singer stated the recommendation is for both operation and\nmaintenance [to be contracted out ] because the maintenance cost\nstructure is the biggest problem.\nThe City Manager stated just doing management is not cost\neffective; the interim operator could reduce costs immediately and\nthe [RFP] process would take 60-90 days.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she would second  ouncilmember deHaan's\nmotion with an amendment; stated more discussion is needed on\nwhether there should be a passive park, recreational specific\nactivity such as the Skate Park, or a national class tournament -\ntype facility; said discussion should be tabled; that she is\nconscious that the General Fund will be impacted very soon with\nrespect to potential shortfalls in rounds of golf for the next two\nyears; that her amendment to the motion would be to proceed with\nthe RFP for an interim operator in order to stop the hemorrhaging\nand directing staff to work with the Golf Commission on the Master\nPlan and seek community feedback on a long-term vision.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he would accept the amendment to\nthe motion regarding engaging the public to review uses of the\nproperty.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff is being instructed to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJuly 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-04-03", "page": 9, "text": "would like to restore the course; stated Greenway Golf wants to change the south\ncourse into a links course on the theory that a links course would drive traffic and bring\nin more golfers; Council needs to make a psychological and financial determination;\nCouncil needs to determine what would make golfers happy and which golfers would be\nhappy.\nMayor Gilmore stated the issue goes back to how to increase revenue; a links course\nmight provide a marketing edge because of being new and different; some local golfers\nmight be unhappy but having the convenience of driving five minutes to the Golf Course\ncannot be beat.\nMr. Sams stated playing conditions are important; however; the most important thing is\nwhere golfers' friends play; many residents play with non-resident friends; golf courses\nhave lost a lot of resident players because non-resident rates went up so high; both\nfirms do an outstanding job maintaining golf courses.\nThe City Manager stated the whole process has been different because plans for the\nGolf Course have been kicked around for at least six years; staff intends to bring a\nreport to Council for a decision on May 15th\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he understood that the next step would be to submit\nthe proposals to the review committee.\nThe City Manager stated the proposals would be presented to the review committee\n[prior to May 15th].\nCouncilmember Tam stated the process started because Council wanted to find a way\nto preserve the golfing experience with a municipal golf course for residents and youth;\nCouncil had to find a way to generate revenue in order to preserve the golfing\nexperience; having a golfing experience that benefits residents is important; that she\nwould like to see a lower rate for residents and preserve lower rates for youth and\nseniors; the golf issue is similar to what the City experienced with the theater; people\ncommented that they would be happy with just one screen and that multiple screens\nwere not needed; however, multiple screens were necessary to make marketing viable;\nthat she will rely upon staff to advise which option would be the best for the future.\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 10:12 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:18 p.m.\n*\nVice Mayor Bonta thanked KemperSports and Greenway Golf for good presentations;\nstated both presentations are strong; the chart presented by Mr. Sams is excellent and\nclarifies projections; that he would like to have staff provide a similar chart comparing\n\"green\" management; ensuring that both companies would have the ability to fulfill\npromises is important, particularly on delivering front end capital improvements;\nGreenway Golf has a distinct vision, which is new and bold; that he has no idea whether\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nApril 3, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-04-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-06-07", "page": 27, "text": "would like to have a six month review; she does not want to bog\ndown the process; the right amount of money needed for urgent\nmatters should be set; the Charter also allows the Council to\ndelegate the authority to other boards and commissions; the Council\nshould consider delegating the hiring of outside counsel for\nAlameda Power & Telecom to the Public Utilities Board.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he does not feel there is over\nspending in the City Attorney's office.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is not suggesting changing the budget\namount she is trying to follow the Charter.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the budget began with focus on the\nGeneral Fund; special revenue funds, capital projects, debt\nservice, and enterprise funds also need to be reviewed.\nMayor Johnson stated that all the funds are intermingled to\na\ncertain extent and have impacts on each other.\nBoard Member deHaan moved adoption of the Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority Resolution.\nBoard Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCommissioner deHaan moved adoption of the Community Improvement\nCommission Resolution.\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the City Council Resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(05-031CIC) - Recommendation to approve the Determination that\nplanning and administrative expenses incurred during FY 2004-05 are\nnecessary for the production, improvement or preservation of low-\nand moderate-income housing.\nCommissioner Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCommissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n12\nImprovement Commission, and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJune 7, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-07-24", "page": 20, "text": "would like to allow the use in the Commercial-Manufacturing (CM) zoning district; adult\nuse should be brought back to Council; discussed the initiative; suggested a tax be\naddressed; stated the manufacturing RFP should be rolling; the cap on the labs should\nbe lifted; there could be four or five smaller labs, rather than one or two large labs; the\napplication on cultivation could also be rolling; business licenses should be required for\ndelivery services, which may be the way of the future.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is okay with reducing the 1,000 foot\nbuffer zone to 650 feet in certain circumstances, such as Ruby's Tumbling and\nMathanasium, because children would not be unattended; the buffer zone should\nremain for all schools, recreation centers at parks and the Boys and Girls Club; she\nwould consider amending the CM zoning to allow dispensaries, manufacturing and labs;\noutreach should be done to business parks; Alameda Point should not be included; she\nwould not support expanding into C-1 at this time; the one mile dispersion should\nremain; she would not add recreational use without robust public input; expressed\nsupport for delivery services; inquired how staff would know and regulate businesses\noutside Alameda doing deliveries.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded the honor system would be used;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJuly 24, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-07-24.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-02-12", "page": 12, "text": "would improve, and that some consequences would follow noncompliance of specific\nBoard requests.\nMember McNamara inquired about the Big Box Retail Study, and noted that she had not\nheard anything further. Ms. Woodbury replied that no meeting had been scheduled yet,\nand that no funds had been budgeted to hire the consultant. City Council believed that\nmany retail and leakage studies had already been held, and requested that staff compile\nexisting information for the committee. After that, it would be determined whether there\nwere any gaps in the information, and whether further study would be needed.\nMember Kohlstrand suggested moving Staff Communication to follow Oral\nCommunication. Ms. Woodbury noted that could be agendized as an amendment to the\nRules and Procedures.\nb.\nFuture Agenda Items.\nNone.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n9:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAnland\nAndrew Thomas, Secretary\nCity Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the March 26, 2007 meeting. This meeting was audio\nand videotaped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 12\nFebruary 12, 2007", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-02-12.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-09-30", "page": 7, "text": "would have to coincide with the BRT proposal and it now seems the proposal will get done\nwhether the redesign gets done or not. He proposed that the plan be its own separate priority\nproject, especially since it is a huge priority for moving people around the west end.\nBoardmember Burton said he seconded Boardmember Knox White's comments about Lincoln\nAvenue. He felt we do not know what is going to happen 20 to 30 years out. Also, he asked\nabout the $1.5 million dollars used for the proposal and wondered how it should it be spent. He\nfelt the report did not refer to great projects of that scale and it is not fair for the Commission and\nthe Board to ask for direction when they had not received concise options for projects that would\nfit within that framework. He would like to see more work done there.\nBoardmember Zuppan referred to the illustration and neighborhoods that are within the outer\nboarders of the City that have no transit service. She said the Clement Avenue option should be\nconsidered more and staff should look at pockets where the City is developing. Moreover, she\nwas concerned about the lack of examples shown for the money that would be used. Lastly, she\nagreed with AC Transit's opinion to reserve or set aside lanes in both directions and it is hard for\nher to believe that there would not be a need, especially at major intersections.\nBoardmember Tang said he was concerned with the bus only lane and wondered if the City\nwould implement limited service hours within the BRT lanes.\nColin Burgett replied the BRT lanes would be open 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.\nNathan Landau replied limiting the hours of bus only lanes, similar to San Francisco would\ncreate tremendous enforcement problems.\nBoardmember Alvarez-Morroni said she was concerned with the funding deadline.\nJohn Atkinson replied that the remaining section of the grant is being passed through by BART\nand consolidated until November 2014. It should go through the construction process by that\ntime, but they could go to the federal agencies to extend the deadline. He explained that Phase I\nwas extended twice, so there is a possibility.\nPage 7 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2015-01-21", "page": 5, "text": "would go back and put the item ahead of other things; the City Manager will tell the\nCouncil when the matter can be addressed; everyone has heard concerns that trying to\nget back and forth over the Bridge during commute time is challenging; no one is\ndenying there is a problem; the City will try to address all problems as expeditiously as\npossible.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous vote - 5.\n(15-071) Consider Directing Staff to Conduct a Consultant Study to Determine the\nFeasibility for a Wetland Mitigation Bank at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Oddie)\n(Continued from January 20, 2015)\nCouncilmember Oddie made brief comments on the referral.\nStated wetland mitigation banks typically produce a better environmental outcome;\ncreating a bank would create a business deal for projects; areas will not be protect by\nsea level rise; suggested asking California Fish and Wildlife to do a walk through and\nreceive free advice before spending money: Richard Bangert, Alameda.\nStated plans were passed to have wetlands at Alameda Point; obtaining information can\nnever hurt; urged the Council to support the referral: Irene Dieter, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated a portion of the referral addresses consultants estimating\nthe cost of removing the concrete by the west side of the seaplane lagoon; he supports\nMr. Bangert's idea of an interim step if it would be helpful; the City is moving on Site A\nand is maybe not moving so fast on Site B; that he would like to see the City move\nforward on the wetlands and the park portion of Alameda Point as well.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie would amend his referral to\ninclude the intermediate step, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Assistant City Manager suggested revising the referral to: \"an appropriate agency\"\nso it is not restricted to one body because there may be another body that staff would\nlike to approach.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the referral with amendments [directing the\nCity Manager to conduct a consultant study to determine the feasibility for a wetland\nmitigation bank at Alameda Point, including the interim step of asking an appropriate\nagency to do a walk through and receive free advice before spending money].\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she thinks the suggestion\nis a good idea; Vice Mayor Matarrese discussed the matter on the campaign trail; Mr.\nBangert indicated a bank may not be right for Alameda; while gaining information never\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 21, 2015", "path": "CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2013-06-24", "page": 5, "text": "would bring a lot of traffic in the tunnels that would impact her neighborhood. This doesn't\nfeel like the right direction for Alameda.\nJerry Serventi, WABA Design Committee, commented on the excitement of the\ndevelopment. He asked that landscaping be the first sight from the tube and it should\nsay 'this is Alameda'.\nPresident Burton closed the meeting to public comment.\nBoard member Knox White commented that this plan has been in the works for 18 months\nand without being rushed the board should take the time it needs to approve a good\ndesign. He further commented on the jaywalking issues and feels the lack of pedestrian\nand bike traffic coming onto the site is inadequate. He commented on guidelines in the\nGeneral Plan and worries they are not making it into the project plans. There haven't been\nreal talks with CalTrans on what can happen in planning. He asked if there was a need\nfor the entire 7 lanes on Stargell and Webster. He stated it doesn't seem it be reasonable\nthis will be back in two weeks. He expressed concerns that the transportation study staff\nreport doesn't address pedestrians and thinks the City and applicant have more work to\ndo. He does not support beer and wine at the gas station.\nVice President Henneberry stated this is the City of Alameda, not the city of Target or city\nof In-and-Out Burger and the signage should reflect this. He asked staff if the Safeway at\nSouthshore is 24-hour, and he agrees this site should not sell alcohol. He asked for public\nsafety to address comments on fast food, banks and late night hours leading to crime.\nSgt. Ron Simmons, APD Traffic Division, responded by saying whenever there is\nsomething new it draws more people to the area and leads to more crime due to the fact\nthere are more people. He cannot comment on a preference for one business over\nanother.\nVice President Henneberry asked about the hours for the operation of the In-and-Out\nBurger use permit. He asked for the hours of operation for Jack-in-the-Box on Webster.\nMr. Kennedy stated hours of operation being open at 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. This is their\nstandard.\nBoard member Tang asked if late night hours could be compared to other times as far as\nsales.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni asked about crime at In-and-Out Burger sites. She\nfurther asked about moving it to the Mariner Square Loop side of the development instead.\nShe asked about the signage issues and is the company opened to a different look.\nMr. Kennedy stated they hire security if incidents arise. He stated they are always willing to\nwork with the developers to look at different areas in the site plan. Where it is currently has\na larger drive-thru lane. He commented that older stores with older signage are being\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 8\nJune 24, 2013", "path": "PlanningBoard/2013-06-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 10, "text": "would be the result on the calculations by assuming a 4.5% medical\ninflation rate after 10 years.\nMr. Bartel responded healthcare becomes 100% of the Gross Domestic\nProduct (GDP) if healthcare continues to grow in the high single or\nlow double digits and general inflation is 3% the scenario of\ndoing nothing means having natural market forces controlling\nhealthcare costs which results in private sector entities dropping\nhealthcare coverage the end result would be 50% of the population\nuninsured something would need to be done; the actuarial accrued\nliability might be 30% higher if the grade is increased from 4.5%\nto 6% accounting standards suggest that an evaluation every two\nyears for agencies that have more than 200 participants.\nMayor Johnson stated a two-year evaluation is fine, but the chart\nshould not go out as far as it does based on a 4.5% medical\ninflation number; assuming that the federal government will adopt a\nnational healthcare plan is very optimistic.\nMr. Bartel stated that he is reluctant to project beyond a ten year\nperiod in terms of actual dollars; he cannot predict what will\nhappen ten years from now.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that Pay-As-You-Go could be much\nmore expensive than pre-funding with a fund that starts having\na\nreturn from investments.\nMr. Bartel stated Pay-As-You-Go is similar to how social security\nis funded today; a check is written when the payment is due; social\nsecurity has a trust fund; the trust fund will run out in\napproximately 15 years; tax dollars will not be sufficient to pay\nfor expected benefits; social security is funded by a quasi pre-\nfunding; CalPERS and private sector retirement systems require that\nmoney be set aside so that there is money in a trust and the money\nwill be there as people retire; the City has entered into a\ncontract with CalPERS to pre-fund benefits.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated many municipalities have addressed the\nissue.\nMr. Bartel stated that he has performed approximately 150\nevaluations; he predicted that four out of five of his clients\nwould not do any pre-funding four or five years ago; he was wrong;\nthe majority of his clients do not have the budget ability to pay\nthe full Annual Required Contribution (ARC) immediately; he is\nconvinced that most of his clients will either phase into paying\nthe full ARC or adopt a standard of putting something aside so that\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2020-10-26", "page": 9, "text": "would be the Alameda Municipal Power Solar Proposal and a residential project on Santa\nClara.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n12.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nBilly tried to speak but unfortunately they were having technical difficulties.\n13.\nADJOURNMENT\nPresident Curtis adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m.\nApproved Planning Board Minutes\nPage 9 of 9\nOctober 26, 2020", "path": "PlanningBoard/2020-10-26.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-12-05", "page": 21, "text": "would be reviewed by the Planning Board and Transportation\nCommission before first phase development is approved; an annual\nreporting process also would be required to evaluate how the\nprogram is doing; flexibility is necessary for the TDM Coordinator\nto respond to user demand.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether\nthe Transportation Commission and Planning Board could set trip\nreduction goals and a measuring methodology.\nThe Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the\nbusiness deal provides Catellus with some security as to the\nprogram cost; $425,000 must be provided to the TDM program for\noperations each year; the City does not have the ability to come\nback in three years and unilaterally request $600,000\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired who determines how to use the\n$425,000.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the Planning Board and\nTransportation Commission have the ability to review the TDM\nprogram for the first phase of the project; stated the program\nwould be up and running once the first phase development is\napproved; the manager would oversee the use of the money.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether recommendations would be\nbrought to Council.\nThe Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated the site\nphase is at the Planning Board approval level.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether\nshuttle use would be contemplated in the TDM program.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the idea was to establish a\nfunding source for an annual operation and allow some flexibility\nfor how best to use the money.\n***\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog moved to\ncontinue the meeting past midnight.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n***\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n10\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nDecember 5, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-06-19", "page": 18, "text": "would be reviewed at mid-year.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether some\ncapital improvement funds could be used for the Meyers House to\nmake the facility more available to the City.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded the Meyers House is\npartially funded through a trust fund established by the Meyers\nfamily stated the Recreation and Park Department subsidizes\napproximately $20,000 to $25,000 per year for the upkeep to the\ngrounds and house.\nMayor/Chail Johnson stated eventually roof repair would need to be\ndone.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated a long-term plan needs to\nbe developed.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that she was on the Planning Board when\nthe City Council accepted the Meyers House; a condition was that\nthe Meyers House would not cost the City money.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the\nmaintenance cost, to which the Recreation and Park Director\nresponded $50,000 to $60,000 per year.\nVice Mayor/Board  Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the City\nis subsidizing over half of the cost, to which the Recreation and\nPark Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated previous\ndiscussions addressed not using the grounds more because of the\nlack of restrooms.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated no outdoor restroom\nfacilities are available; the Meyers House is in the middle of a\nresidential neighborhood; rentals take place a couple of times a\nyear for wedding ceremonies and teas; parking is limited.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated residents are subsidizing the Meyers\nHouse; it is important to find a way for residents to enjoy the\nfacility.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what are the\nhours of operation.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n7\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority,\nand Community Improvement Commission\nJune 19, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-12-07", "page": 11, "text": "would be provided, not a final lease document.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she does not have the sense that Council is\nrequesting a document but wants business terms in the larger context to know whether\nthe Mif Albright Course fits; an executable document is not needed.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Note:\nunder Council Communications, Vice Mayor deHaan amended his vote to abstain.]\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-593) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointments to the Housing\nCommission; Planning Board; Public Art Commission; and Transportation Commission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Dorie Lofstrom-Perez to the Housing Commission; Karen\nLee to the Public Art Commission; and Thomas Bertken and Jesus Vargas to the\nTransportation Commission.\n(10-594) Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he reconsidered his vote on the Mif Albright\nGolf Course [paragraph no. 10-592 and he would abstain.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nDecember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-12-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-02", "page": 24, "text": "would be maintained by the developer and whether the MSD would be\npaid for by the project and would not be a burden of the City or\nresidents, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a commitment has been made to reutilize\nsome of the buildings even if Clif Bar is not a tenant. inquired\nwhether there is a market for the buildings.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded that\nClif Bar is the identified tenant for the adaptive reuse; Catellus\ncould continue the demolition of the warehouses if Clif Bar went\naway and there were not a replacement tenant ; currently, Catellus\nis not going in said direction but is looking at preserving more\nwarehouses.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see some\nensurance if the project performs better than expected; a trigger\npoint needs to be established for getting additional funding if\n$425,000 is not enough; he would like to see some type of trigger\npoint that shows an evaluation would be done against the agreed\nupon criteria after a defined period of time that allows additional\nmoney to be allocated up to a certain percentage for the TDM\nProgram if the project is performing better than the Performa.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the commercial development agreement\ncould be brought back to Council in two weeks with Councilmember\nMatarrese's suggestion.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated it is\nimportant for the motion to have as much specificity tonight for\nthe purpose of having the ordinance adopted in two weeks.\nMr. Marshall inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese was making a\nconnection between the project being more successful than\nanticipated and some additional burden on the TDM Program or\nwhether the thoughts were independent.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the connection is that there will be\nmore traffic if the project is wildly successful.\nMr. Marshall stated the challenging aspect is how to measure the\nTDM Program; a cap was established to understand the financial\nimpact to the developer; an escalator is in the drafted document\nwhich is not insignificant : the developer seems to be hit twice\nwith a percentage increase and an escalatori suggested that the\nescalator be deferred until the adjustment is made; additional\nlanguage would need to be added to the underwriting to explain the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nJanuary 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 6, "text": "would be informed if a project has to be delayed.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the local action plan spans departments,\nwhile the telecom issue is just an Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T)\nissue; inquired whether one project might be delayed if staff is\nshifted to another project.\nThe City Manager responded said example could occur; AP&T is\nworking on more than one project.\nVice Mayor Tam stated AP&T staff is needed to work on reducing the\ncarbon footprint inquired whether the same staff person might work\non the telecom issue and the formation of the local action plan and\nwhether said staff working on the telecom issue might delay the\nformation of the plan.\nThe City Manager responded one could impact the other depending on\nworkload; stated moving forward with the local action plan does\nrequire some of the same people [as the telecom issue]. having some\nof the same people work on multiple projects has been incorporated\nin the time estimates.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated there are a variety of issues from\naddressing the financial issue at AP&T to renovating Rittler Field,\nand Lincoln and Krusi Parks; said items do not belong on the same\nranking sheet; getting a measuring mechanism for each item would be\na far more productive use of time; the department work plans are\nexcellent; some projects are interdisciplinary and can be separated\nout; the next step should be to get Microsoft Project or some other\ntype of project tracking tool and assign due dates and resources;\nCouncil would need to make decisions about priorities if resources\nbecome impacted because more requests are added; finishing easily\ntaken care of projects, which might be of less importance, might\nbecome important in order to get the project off the list.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the list is composed of\nitems Council has directed staff to complete, to which Ms. Perkins\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the presented workload should be\nlooked at objectively and resources should be allocated; there are\na finite number of projects; some projects might be five years out\nbecause there are too many tasks for the current staff; said\ninformation needs to presented to Council and Council can make\nadjustments.\nMs. Perkins stated Councilmember Matarrese's description is exactly\nhow staff views their responsibilities to determine how to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-05-31", "page": 6, "text": "would be engaged about doing a public-private partnership.\nCouncilmember Johnson noted the City would not be locked into the direction without\nquestions being answered first.\nThe Acting City Manager stated Frequently Asked Questions information could be\nprepared.\nMayor Gilmore stated community input should be solicited on the front end for the next\nbudget; community members should consider how they would prioritize core services\nand provide suggestions; the City needs to build a budget based on the services the\ncommunity values.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:02\na.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 and\n6\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nMay 31, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-05-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 20, "text": "would be difficult to do later, to which the Redevelopment Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nChair Johnson inquired whether other canopies could be added later,\nto which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated that he likes Alternative #1;\ninquired whether either alternative would have an effect on the\nability to get a tree easement or put a vine trellis/mural on the\nnorthern wall.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded architecturally there would not\nbe a problem.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether there would be a financial\nimpact.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the easement would have to be\nnegotiated with Longs; stated that she does not know whether there\nwould be financial implications.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether vines could be planted\nwithout obtaining an easement.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded external planters become a high\nmaintenance issue because the plants tend to die.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired what would be the option for making\nthe northern side look decent.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded vines take five to seven years\nto grow; stated an alternative would be to architecturally retrofit\nthe northern elevation in the future; additional funding would be\nrequired; another alternative would be to do a temporary vinyl\nmural : a mural could be placed on the three, middle bay windows to\nbreak up the fa\u00e7ade and cover the slope.\nChair Johnson stated hopefully more contingency money would become\navailable and other options could be explored.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired why the marquee canopy price changed\ndrastically.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded that she speculates the\noriginal bid was not correct; stated staff would negotiate to\nreduce the cost if the Commission decides to pursue the option.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the northern elevation treatment changed\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n2\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-12-11", "page": 15, "text": "would be brought before the Board in the form of the Target PDA.\n9.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATION:\nNone.\n10.\nBOARD COMMUNICATION:\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Northern Waterfront Plan (Vice-President Cook).\nVice President Cook advised there was nothing new to report.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nMember Mariani was not in attendance to present this report.\nc.\nOral Status Report regarding the Transportation subcommittee (Board Member\nKohlstrand).\nMember Kohlstrand noted that there had been no meetings since her last report.\nd.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force (Board\nMember Cunningham).\nMember Cunningham was not in attendance to present this report.\n11.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATION:\nMr. Thomas reviewed recent City Council action on Development Projects.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT:\n11:28 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nAnlable\nAndrew Thomas\nSecretary, City Planning Board\nThese minutes were approved at the January 8, 2007, Planning Board meeting. This meeting was\naudio and video taped.\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 15\nDecember 11, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-12-11.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-10-20", "page": 21, "text": "would be better reviewing the best way to spend money for the\ncommunity as a whole is important.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated that he is glad money is being\ninvested in the website which can be used as a tool to measure\nsuccessi the internet has become the first search avenue; that he\nwould like to receive an interim report and not wait until the end\nof the year to see how things are going; the City needs to be agile\nbecause of the current, unsettled financial environment; milestones\nneed to be established.\nFollowing Ms. Marr's comments, Commissioner Tam stated the City is\nspending $250,000 in advertising between the four associations;\nhaving a coordinated effort in getting the most bang for the buck\nis important.\nCommissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nChair Johnson inquired whether Economic Development would work with\nthe associations to pool resources.\nThe Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated efforts are being made to collaborate a holiday event also.\nCommissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote - 5.\n(*09-44 CIC) Recommendation to Approve and Appropriate a $200,000\nBrownfields Subgrant Agreement to Assist in the Fleet Industrial\nSupply Center Fire Cleanup. Accepted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09-422 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance\nAmending Municipal Code by Adding Subsection 30-17 (Density Bonus\nRegulations) to Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of\nChapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Allow Density Bonus Units\nand Incentives or Concessions to Developers that Voluntarily\nProvide for Affordable Housing Units as an Element of Their\nResidential Development Project. Not introduced; and\n(09-45 CIC) Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution No. 04-127\nto Reduce the Inclusionary Unit Requirement Policy for Residential\nDevelopments in the Business and Waterfront and West End Community\nImprovement Project Areas from at Least 25% to at Least 15%. Not\nadopted.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-09-25", "page": 3, "text": "would be added back; the Tubes and facilities previously accommodated the flow of\n14,000 jobs; before 1997, when there were 14,000 jobs, there was not the current and\nproposed development in Oakland or sea level change issues as well other issues\nraised by speakers; requested staff to provide a contextual framework.\nThe City Planner stated the State has established a very prescriptive way to do an EIR;\nstaff and consultants will ensure additional information and context is available to the\ncommunity, Planning Board and Council; the greatest number of jobs and population\nwas in 1994; a lot of cars left Alameda Point every day; the Navy had ways of managing\ntrips through staggered shifts, but traffic was still bad; staff's approach is to determine\nwhat the community can manage and to use different methods; new techniques have to\nbe found for people traveling back and forth to new jobs at Alameda Point; a portion of\nthe redevelopment at Alameda Point would get the City back to the jobs and population\n20 years ago; transportation is one of the most interesting challenges; positive things\nare on the horizon, which other communities are doing; employers run shuttles because\nemployees do not want to drive; companies at Alameda Point today want to start\nrunning shuttles; Marina Village is looking at doing a shuttle study; the younger\ngeneration is not rushing to buy cars, which will be part of the solution moving forward.\nCouncilmember Tam noted the City's population only increased by less then 1% in the\npast 10 years.\nThe City Planner stated people feel like the population has been growing faster because\nof driving habits; a challenge is getting the community to change driving habits; the City\nhas been working with regional transportation agencies, such as the Water Emergency\nTransportation Authority (WETA) and BART regarding options and solutions; trips have\nbe to reduced and alternatives are needed, such as a BART extension, which the City is\nstill working on; BART recently attended the Planning Board meeting and wants to\nreview the option.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Bay Area recently had a couple of opportunities to\ndo trial runs of alternative means of transportation, other than cars, during the BART\nstrike and Bay Bridge closure; the ferries saw tremendous increases in ridership; people\nwill use other means of transportation; the ferries and AC Transit stepped up\noperations; the City Council and Planning Board receive lots of emails from people\nconcerned about proposed developments and the impact of automobile traffic;\nencouraged everyone to think about their personal habits and ask themselves whether\neverything is being done to minimize car dependency; the public's help is needed;\noptions reviewed for Alameda Point should be applied to the greater community as well.\nMayor Gilmore stated transportation demand management plans and ways to minimize\nthe impact of new development assumes the problem is Alameda Point; however, how\nthe rest of the Island gets around is going to have to change; everyone should be\nthinking about taking shuttles and BART; the solution is going to have to be Island wide.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n3\nPlanning Board\nSeptember 25, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-09-25.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-12-21", "page": 11, "text": "would be a shame.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does rely on staff recommendations.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated staff should be considering the equity aspect for the\nprogram; many suggestions have been provided about rotating slow streets; she has not heard\nof anyone volunteering for more car traffic; many people are happy to have less car traffic; the\nconcern of increased car traffic is legitimate; the issue of equity is valuable; expressed support\nfor staff taking the matter to heart.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated slow streets barriers prevent through traffic; some streets want\nthe barriers and have reasons just as valid as any other street.\nOn the call carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera\nSpencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(21-849) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to\nthe Agreement with Kittelson & Associates to Increase Compensation by $270,906, for a Total\nAggregate Compensation Not to Exceed $345,876 to Continue Providing Technical Services\nRelated to Roundabouts.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the work being performed includes rendering\nvideos.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the contract is currently trying to\nidentify where roundabouts can physically and practically work; stated the next step would be to\nnarrow down the limited locations and start conceptual designs for the specific locations; then,\nstaff can work on graphics and videos.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the contracted amount includes providing the\nrendering video or whether the contract includes more preliminary work, to which the Planning,\nBuilding and Transportation Director responded the work is more preliminary.\nMike Alston, Kittelson & Associates, stated that he has been working with staff on roundabout\nwork throughout 2021; advanced alternatives are included further down the line; a task for\nvisualization is included in the proposed scope of work.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the additional money covers visualization, to\nwhich Mr. Alston responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether visualization will be included for each\nroundabout.\nMr. Alston responded the visualization is included for certain locations where a roundabout\nwould be viable; once enough is known, the scope includes the task to visualize the proposed\nconcept; multiple videos for roundabouts will not be made; however, if a viable location be\nidentified, staff will develop a design for the location; if the location is presented to the\nTransportation Commission and Council, the visualization will be prepared.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 21, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-12-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 29, "text": "would allow Catellus to explore a change in the current DDA.\nThe Development Services Director responded that the amendment\nwould allow Catellus to explore re-entitlement of the existing\nproperty.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether there would be a public\nprocess that would allow people to comment, to which the\nDevelopment Services Director responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated that he wanted people to be aware\nthat the matter would be publicly noticed and that Catellus would\nbe given a year to provide more information.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCommissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions Commissioner deHaan\n- 1.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 2:45 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n2\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2009-01-28", "page": 8, "text": "worse than the conditions in front of the College of Alameda. He noted that Otis and Park was\nalso a difficult intersection for pedestrians, even though it was an LOS C. He noted that Encinal\nand Park, which was a busy intersection and was not a good place to park, which was an LOS B.\nHe believed that the City should step away from LOS D. He understood where the transit\nnumbers came from, and suggested that a percent change along a segment would be more\nmeaningful. He believed it would be difficult to come up with a specific number, and that change\nin the current level of service would be more meaningful in keeping the transit schedule.\nCommissioner Schatmeier requested further clarification on how a level of service could be\nassigned to transit, and noted that length of the corridors were an issue. He did not know what\nthe baseline was, and noted that a bus could travel through Alameda at midnight than during the\npeak hour because there were not as many passengers, and not as many cars on the streets.\nStaff Khan noted that staff would examine peak period conditions, and noted that any ADA delay\nof the bus was not part of the discussion; that discussion meant travel time, and subtracting dwell\ntime from the transit travel time. If a project increased the travel time with more cars, and if LOS\nwas already E or F, staff would examine what else could be considered.\nCommissioner Krueger believed the length of the corridor had to be considered, and that the\nautomobile arterial segments discussed the average travel speed, which must take the length of\nthe corridor into account. He believed that should be taken into account for transit as well, and\nthat the effect on the travel speed should be considered.\nStaff Khan stated that was correct, and that staff was looking at segments of approximately one-\nhalf to three-quarters of a mile.\nStaff Khan noted that when staff examined it, they had not run the arterial analysis at that point.\nHe noted that it looked at signalized intersections, and that they inquired whether the model\ncould be run on a street without signals. He noted that they may want to resort to the intersection,\nand that they were discussing the issue with Dowling.\nCommissioner Schatmeier inquired why the City would be tolerant of degradation of the LOS for\nautomobiles, and believed there were impacts that should be described and responded to.\nChair Knox White agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier's comment, and noted that he would\nlike to identify the impacts.\nStaff Khan noted that the Commission would like to examine:\n1. Degradation for pedestrians, bikes and transit by a letter grade; look into how the\nthresholds were set, particularly D versus C, as well as for pedestrians and bikes;\n2. The baseline for transit LOS D should be defined and addressed;\n3. Travel speed is a better measure for transit than delay;\n4.\nThe intersection LOS should be evaluated for automobiles; and\n5. Why the degradation of the automobile LOS should be allowed to degrade.\n8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2009-01-28.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2013-04-11", "page": 2, "text": "world strategies. Through this focused action, it hopes to empower the Greater Bay Area\ncommunities to stand up and say ENOUGH child sexual abuse!\nMs. Kudarauskas explained that she would like to present the PP at a meeting on Non-profit EDs\nin preparation for the launch. Campaign materials will include trailers that hopefully can be run\nat the Alameda Theatre.\nMember Robles-Wong enquired about the campaign's capacity to reach non-English speaking\nAlamedans.\nMs Kudarauskas shared that there will be the opportunity to train multi-lingual presenters. We\nwill check to see in which languages the PP is available.\nMotion recommending the Board co-sponsor the Enough Abuse Campaign in Alameda, in\npartnership with Alameda Family Services.\nM/S Wasko/Villareal Unanimous\n3-B. WORKGROUP PROGRESS REPORTS - Information - 30 minutes\nAssessment and Awareness Workgroup\nPresident Wasko said she was prepared to put together a \"Survey Template\" but wanted feedback\nfrom others regarding whether or not it was needed. The consensus was to provide basic information\nas opposed to a complete \"How To\" package. The next survey conducted by the Board will most\nlikely be one dealing with Human Relations.\nResource Sharing Workgroup\nMember Biggs announced that there was a meeting of non-profit EDs on March 20. President\nWasko was there to suggest collaborative grant application opportunities, but the group expressed\nthat they would like more time to gel as a group before taking on collaborative projects. They plan\nto meet again soon.\nAlamedans Together Against Hate Workgroup\nMember Villareal shared that ATAH met a few weeks ago and is in the process of drafting a letter to\nthe Scouts that might also be shared with the media.\nHe also announce plans for the upcoming 4th Annual Harvey Milk Day Celebration. Jim Franz has\njoined Henry as co-chair for the event.\n4.\nBOARD/STAFF COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA - Information - 10 minutes\nMember Robles-Wong announced that he is helping coordinate the Asian Pacific Island Cultural\nFestival at South Shore on May 19. One of the roles he is playing on the committee is recognition\nof Asian Pacific Island former armed forces members.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Information - 3 minutes per speaker\n6.\nADJOURNMENT\nB\\PACKETS\\2013\\A 013\\MINUTES April 2013.doc", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2013-04-11.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 13, "text": "workshops should include a wide range of individuals and should be\nnoticed and open.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing the Fire\nMarshal and other Department Heads, including the City Manager and\nPlanning and Building Director, as needed, to take the matter back\nto a workshop open to the public and publicly noticed to resolve\nissues raised and bring other issues to the forefront, particularly\nto look at the equity and value, the threshold amount, and the way\nthat the worth is calculated and projected across the project as\nwell as looking at the on-going operating costs versus the benefit\nof the revised code.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that stakeholder\ncomments should be noted and compared to what staff thinks is\nneeded.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the cost of follow up needs to be\nplaced in the equations.\nThe Fire Marshal stated one and two family dwellings do not have\non-going maintenance costs; inspections are performed by the\nhomeowners.\nMayor Johnson stated examples should include costs for different\ntypes of structures.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested clarification on whether garages are\npart of the square foot determination.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether garages are exempted for single-\nfamily homes and duplexes.\nThe Fire Marshal responded garages would be required to have a\nsprinkler if attached to the dwelling.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a detached garage would need to have\na sprinkler, to which the Fire Marshal responded only if the garage\nis more than 300 square feet.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(06-474) Ordinance No. 2952, \"Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain\nProperty Within the City of Alameda from Open Space (O) to\nCommunity Manufacturing Planned Development (CM-PD) by Amending\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-06-07", "page": 4, "text": "workshops and stakeholder interviews, and to get a read of the\ncommunity to help Development Services direct resources.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the information from the last\ntwo meeting has been summarized and is available, to which the\nDevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner deHaan requested said information.\nThe Development Manager noted the information has been provided to\nDr. Manross to assist him with developing questions.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that he would like to see the questions\nonce developed.\nThe Development Manager stated an Economic Development Commission\n(EDC) subcommittee would assist with drafting the questionnaire.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired what would be done with the data.\nThe Development Manager responded the data with be reviewed,\nanalyzed and presented to the EDC.\nDr. Manross stated the information gathered would be tested in the\ncommunity; there would be a return on the investment.\nThe Development Services Director stated the survey would be an\nupdate to the EDSP, which provides the foundation; the survey would\nensure the EDSP stays valid.\nCommissioner deHaan stated results should be presented to the\ncommunity; his concerns are ensuring results of meetings held are\nincluded and the crafting of the questions; there is no hidden\nagenda for funding streams.\nAni Dimusheva, Alameda, stated the best way to get the opinion of\nthe community at large is to talk to the community; suggested\nholding a town hall meeting once a month at cafes throughout town;\nstated a study is not needed.\nCommissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation,\nwith the change to cap the budget at $17,000 to allow staff and the\nconsultant to determine how to proceed stated that he would hope\nfor a higher sample size; however, increasing the time is\nacceptable.\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n4\nJune 7, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-02-01", "page": 27, "text": "workshop during a regular Council meeting; it is untrue that Council must discuss\npriorities at a workshop retreat; Council can start by reviewing prior Council priorities\nand set the matter as a regular agenda item; all Councilmembers are available the first\nand third Tuesday of the month.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that Council discusses priorities at workshops in order to allow\nfor a focus and deliberation on only the priorities; workshops have previously lasted\nseveral hours; expressed concern about having full agendas; stated taking away from\nthe business of the City or ensuring the discussion does not occur at 11:00 p.m. is the\nreason to have a separate workshop; she will not be supporting the motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he found the referral reasonable; the idea of having\na workshop during a Council meeting starting at 5:00 p.m. is reasonable; Council has\nheld workshops in areas which were not accessible or generally open to the public.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested the motion be re-stated.\nThe City Clerk stated the motion is to approve the referral to have the priority setting\nworkshop held at a regular City Council meeting.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(22-093) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(22-094) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department\nCommunity Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(22-095) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the Vaccine Task Force's booster clinic at\nMastic Senior Center.\n(22-096) Councilmember Daysog discussed the City Council/School Board\nSubcommittee meeting; stated the School District will be placing a bond measure on the\nJune ballot.\n(22-097) Councilmember Knox White discussed the AC Transit Interagency Liaison\nCommittee meeting; stated AC Transit Line 78 to the Seaplane Lagoon for the 1 year\npilot program is coming to the end; the pilot program cannot be extended; public\nhearings will be held.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted AC Transit is also working with the City on a bus pass for\nlow income senior citizens and those with disabilities.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2022\n27", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "OpenGovernmentCommission", "date": "2021-08-02", "page": 2, "text": "works; she is not convinced either way whether outside legal counsel is needed or\nwhether it could be done in-house with City Attorney staff; if the Commission is not\nsatisfied with the product, then the alternative could be tried; all attorneys are trained to\nargue multiple sides of any issue; she would like to see a neutral memo first.\nCommissioner Reid stated the Commission's task is to ask what is the best way for the\nOGC to serve the public; the OGC needs to ensure that someone who is bringing forward\na complaint receives the best chance of being heard and understood; suggested having\noutside, independent counsel for the next few meetings to see what that would look like;\nstated the complaints heard this year already took the other approach with the City\nAttorney's office drafting resolutions, which had a lot of confusion; she would like to try\nthe outside counsel approach, but would like to know a cost estimate first.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated that she does see the two paths as the most desirable; she\nis leaning towards the option of what the City Attorney's office proposed because it is an\nincremental step; there has actually never been a neutral memo come from the City\nAttorney's office; everything has always been viewed by everyone writing it as an\nadvocacy piece; the City Attorney's office prefers to structure it with the Chief Assistant\nCity Attorney providing advice to the Commission and having outside counsel when\nnecessary; suggested leaning into trust and seeing what that looks like; the memos would\nbe put forth publicly; the Commission would be very aware if they are not neutral; she\nwould also like more guardrails in place and a commitment that the OGC would be\nreceiving an instructional memo.\nChair Tilos stated that he would be supportive of trying out a restructured process of\nhaving a walled-off Chief Assistant City Attorney, along with providing a neutral memo; it\nwould be a marginal step towards building trust between the OGC and City Attorney's\noffice.\nCommissioner LoPilato stated it is also possible to do both options, which would be a\ngood trust exercise and be improvement to the support of the Commission.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that she appreciates all the comments; she\nechoes Commissioner LoPilato's comment that the City Attorney's office has never\nprovided a neutral statement, summary, memo or jury instructions; she understands the\nCommission's point about wanting some explanation of the case; concurred with\nCommission Chen's comments that attorneys are trained to both write advocacy pieces\nand to frame issues neutrally; she can definitely do both and it is something her office\nwould entertain in the context of supporting the Commission in its adjudicatory capacity;\nshe envisions that there would be support in terms of a neutral statement of the cases;\ngenerally speaking, the City Attorney's office is in charge of handling legal advice and\nrepresentation in house; from time to time, outside counsel is hired for a variety of\nreasons; she does not know what the cost would be to use outside counsel.\nIn response to Chair Tilos' inquiry, Commissioner LoPilato stated it sounds like everyone,\nincluding the Chief Assistant City Attorney, is in alignment for the first piece regarding the\nMeeting of the\nOpen Government Commission\nAugust 2, 2021\n2", "path": "OpenGovernmentCommission/2021-08-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-02", "page": 11, "text": "working with to increase ecommerce; DABA is also working to expand its social media.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated DABA, in conjunction with\nRythmics, has submitted a grant to secure funds to support an art program that will\ninclude an art contest to decorate vacant store fronts, abandon buildings facades and\nfencing to improve the overall look of the downtown district.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is looking forward to different events that raise\nmoney; the street closures are an inconvenience to people who use AC Transit.\nMayor Spencer thanked staff and everyone involved in the collaboration.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(17-295) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18\nCommunity Development Block Grant (CDBG)/HOME Partnership Investment Program\nAction Plan; and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related\nDocuments, Agreements, and Modifications at Funding Levels Approved by Congress.\nThe Housing Authority Director of Housing and Community Development Director\n(HADHCD Director) gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the 23 affordable housing units that\nwere created under non-housing community development, are in a particular\ndevelopment.\nThe Community Development Director responded the 23 units are for TriPointe\ninclusionary housing units at Alameda Landing.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what services were provided to the 273\nhomeless clients.\nThe HADHCD Director responded the programs that specifically target homeless are\nAlameda Point Collaborative which provides job training\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why WABA was not consulted regarding the\neconomic development and business strategy on the West End.\nThe HADHCD Director responded that she concurs outreach should also be to WABA;\nshe will make sure the email list is updated to include WABA.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the statement: \"no CDBG funds will be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMay 2, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-08-16", "page": 13, "text": "working with the Architectural Resources Group (ARG) to assess the\nbuilding; ARG has worked with engineers and other specialists to\ndetermine what needs to be done to bring the building up to code\nand to repair, reverse and restore some of the damage that has been\ndone; a lot of seismic work has to be done, such as reinforcing the\nconcrete fa\u00e7ade marquee area that is only held up by four redwood\nposts; fire sprinklers have to be installed; the electrical and\nplumbing work has to be redone the water in the basement is a\ncombination of a leak from a storm drain as well as ground water\nintrusion.\nThe Development Manager stated that the lobby carpet was replaced;\nthe mezzanine carpet is torn; the lobby mirror, mezzanine mural,\nand light fixtures have been removed; the curtain has suffered\nwater damage; the floor of the auditorium has been built up buffer\nwalls have been installed along side walls; holes were made in the\nauditorium ceiling for lighting; there is significant water damage\nalong the alley due to a storm drain.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the retail revenue would be received\nfrom the historic theater; inquired whether retail revenue would be\nreceived from the Cineplex.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the negative. stated\nthat the developer is building the Cineplex with his own financing\nand would receive the rents from his own retail space.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the rent revenue was\nsignificant to the developer to make the project work.\nThe Development Services Director responded that the funding is\npart of the picture; the Cineplex retail is only 3,400 square feet.\nThe Business Development Division Manager stated the revenue from\nthe retail space counts toward the percentage rent the developer\nwill pay.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated one of the seven auditoriums in the new\nCineplex has 78 seats; the historic theater balcony accommodated\n150 seats; inquired what is the concern with renovating the\nbalcony.\nThe Development Services Director responded that the DDA allows the\ndeveloper to use the balcony at a later point at his own expense if\nhe chooses; the spaces are not soundproof, provide 62-64 seats each\nand would be used to show boutique films.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Cineplex building could\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nAugust 16, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2005-05-18", "page": 3, "text": "working with staff to organize and train the new volunteers. Also\nmentioned was that the old Junior Golf Resources container on Clubhouse\nMemorial Road has been removed.\n4-B\nGeneral Manager Dana Banke's report highlighting maintenance and\noperational activities for the month at the Golf Complex.\nCovered in the Head Golf Professional's report.\n4-D\nBeautification Program by Mrs. Norma Arnerich.\nMrs. Arnerich reported that a tree ceremony is being held next weekend\nand mentioned that a number of trees on the right side of #13 on the Earl\nFry Course are dying and need to be replaced. Mrs. Arnerich also thanked\nthe players in the Commuter's Golf Tournament that donated their prize\ngift certificates to the Junior Golf Club.\n5.\nCOMMISSIONERS' REPORTS\n5-A\nLong-Range Planning and Government Liaison, Chair Swanson.\nReport previously discussed.\n5-B\nBuildings, Security, Albright Course and Driving Range, Secretary\nGammell.\nCommissioner Gammell reported that security has been fine over the past\nmonth and the Driving Range is doing well. Also reported was that the\nredesign of the Mif Albright Course looks good.\n5-C\nMaintenance Status of Golf Complex and Capital Improvements, Vice\nChair Santare.\nVice Chair Santare reported that the two major Capital Improvement\nProjects (CIPs) are currently the Clubhouse project and the Urban Runoff\nproject. Also reported was that the golf courses are in good shape with the\nexception of some dead areas of grass. The question was raised\nconcerning the Ladies tee on #14 of the Earl Fry Course and where it is\nsuppose to be. The Head Golf Professional stated that the tee is located at\nthe very front of the tee area before the water feature. The complaint was\nthat the tee is often on the other side of the water, in the area where the\nyellow (drop area) tees are.\n5-D\nGolf Complex Financial Report\nThe total revenue from golf on the three (3) courses was down 22% for the", "path": "GolfCommission/2005-05-18.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-06-23", "page": 2, "text": "working on this park plan for two years. The Commission have been involved in all of the\ncommunity input processes. He stated the design can provide something for everyone in\nthe community from active use, to passive use.\nMr. Damian Mason, Alameda Backyard Growers, spoke on adding more details to the plan\nand design. One of those ideas was to reuse the cattails, but then to clean the\ncontamination of oil on the site. He provided sketches of the community garden plots, tool\nstorage, and composting.\nMs. Ester Burlingame, lives next to the park and is supportive of the design plan. She\nquestioned the 24' of path and the need for it being that wide. She is concerned the path\nmay become a road in the future.\nMr. Mike O'Hara, Tim Lewis Communities, reported being in support of the park and the\nplan. The company will contribute $2 million to the project. He wanted to clarify the\ncompany's role in the park is strictly funding.\nMs. Amanda Soskin, resident stated she is hopeful this plan and park is approved. She is\nconcerned with parking at the park, and not on the streets. She reiterated Ms.\nWooldridge's comments on safety and maintenance.\nMr. Doug deHaan, spoke in favor of moving the plan forward and approve it. He wanted\nto recognize the champions of the committee who have worked tirelessly. He\ncommended Ms. Wooldridge for her role.\nClosed public comment.\nBoard Member Alvarez-Morroni thanked the public and Mr. Sweeney and stated this to be\na wonderful tribute to his wife. She asked Ms. Wooldridge about the lighting of the park.\nMs. Wooldridge reported there are two aspects for lighting, the cross Alameda trail will be\nlit and the pathway will have ground lighting. There is a Park Monitor program in place\nthat will help. The large path will be for patrol vehicle use.\nBoard member Zuppan stated being excited to see this back, and remembers Jean\nSweeney being before this Board. She hopes there will be some kind of tribute to her.\nMs. Wooldridge reported there will be educational markers throughout the park.\nBoard member Zuppan is pleased but encouraged the City to fully look at the long term\ncosts for maintenance costs. She thanked all who volunteered.\nVice President Henneberry is pleased to see the BMX path gone from the plan. He\nsupports approval.\nPresident Burton supports the great connections to the adjacent neighborhoods on the\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 9\nJune 23, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-06-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 6, "text": "working on a comprehensive strategic plan and there has only been\none accident each of the last four years, Council should postpone\nreview until information from the strategic plan is available.\nThe Public Works Director stated there is a concern that since all\nway stop warrants are met , the City might open itself up to\nliability.\nMayor Johnson stated there would be many more four-way stop signs\nif the City studied every intersection to determine whether\nwarrants are met.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry about whether the City\nAttorney wished to address liability, the City Attorney stated not\nin public; holding the matter over would not be a problem.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he travels on Sherman Street; a\nnumber of accidents are probably not reported; that he has\nwitnessed accidents ; lateral corridors are impacted when vehicles\ntravel to the South Shore area; vehicles travel 40 mph down Santa\nClara Avenue; crossing the intersection is a challenge; hopefully,\ntraffic can be diverted [off of Sherman Street] at some point.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has data on whether\npeak traffic on Sherman Street has changed; stated there are\nprobably younger families in the Gold Coast now; Sherman Street\ntraffic volumes might be increasing because it is probably easier\nfor workers to commute down Sherman Street rather than traveling\ndown Constitution Way and Eighth Street.\nMayor Johnson stated analysis of Councilmember Daysog's idea would\nbe interesting to review and is why the City needs to pay attention\nto the impacts of stop signs; Constitution Way should handle more\ntraffic; the City should be encouraging drivers to use Constitution\nWay; the City should review whether drivers are discouraged from\nusing Constitution Way because of the traffic controls.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Constitution Way narrows down to one\nlane at Eighth Street there is a bottleneck on Eighth Street at\nSanta Clara and Central Avenues at commute hours, which makes it\nmore convenient to use alternate routes, such as Sherman Street.\nMayor Johnson stated the convenience created could be a result of\nthe City's traffic controls and roadway configuration and is the\nreason the City needs to be strategic and design how people get\naround and off Alameda.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Sherman Street becomes a bypass to get\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 10, "text": "working hard to get the program up to speed; expressed support for AFD beginning\nnegotiations with the Felton Institute as soon as possible; stated that she would like the\nprocess to begin streamlined due to multiple agencies being involved; the program is a\npilot and the City should determine what the program will look like; the recommendation\ndoes not exclude Alameda Family Services or any other agency from applying; she\nwould like to act with expediency and many Councilmembers have voiced a preference\nfor the Felton Institute to be engaged with the program relative to providing mental\nhealth services; an RFP does not need to be issued and would cause unnecessary\ndelays at this point; expressed concern for engaging in hypothetical scenarios to end up\nwith what is currently being proposed.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the Felton Institute currently has\npatients in the City of Alameda.\nMr. Gilbert responded in Felton Institute currently serves clients within Alameda County;\nstated the office holds a separate clinic where mental health professionals deal with\nemergency crises in Alameda County; an early psychosis program is housed in the\nAlameda office.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether everyone in Alameda would be able\nto receive services within the City of Alameda.\nMr. Gilbert responded in the affirmative; stated the Felton Institute does not currently\nhave staff working outside of a contract; the Felton Institute is an agency working with\nAlameda and other counties; staff can be allocated based on the funding.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is critical to offer mental health services\nwithin the City of Alameda; it is not appropriate to ask those seeking mental health\nservices to travel to different cities for service; it is important to offer mental health\nservices within the City of Alameda.\nMr. Gilbert stated if the City pays for services, the services can be provided; clinical staff\nis working at the Atlantic Avenue office location on an early psychosis program, which\nrequires additional professionals; a training center is also available at the Alameda\nlocation; the Felton Institute is not currently contracted nor funded with the City of\nAlameda to provide clinical support services.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like the information kept in mind\nby Councilmembers; expressed concern about negotiating with one agency that does\nnot appear to have current services within Alameda; questioned the cost for choosing\none agency.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated none of the locations referenced by AFD are within\nAlameda; outlined the CAHOOTS model; stated that she is working on a proposal to\nuse a floor or two of Alameda Hospital for other mental health uses similar to the\nCAHOOTS model.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 23, "text": "working conditions; she was impressed with how the situation played out; the\ncommunication was respectful; the change speaks volumes for the company; she is\nsatisfied with the due diligence performed.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she was Mayor at the time of the change in\nemployment for ACI workers; every Councilmember supported the change, which was\noverwhelmingly supported by the community; she has looked at the numbers; since 2006,\nthe rate for the smallest bin was $45 for the quarter; the annual rate of inflation since 2006\nhas been 1.89%, which would bring the cost up to $59; however, the current cost for the\nsmallest bin is $132.20 per quarter; the result is a compounded interest of 6% per annum\nover time; the graph only shows the past four years; the rate increase has been more; if\nthere is a 5% increase each year, the resulting fee would be $188 per quarter; the increase\nis a problem; people have a problem paying the fee; there are 15% lower rates for those\nthat qualify as low-income or are senior citizens; the 15% reduction could help people in\nneed; expressed support for Council looking at a higher percentage in reduction for low-\nincome and for ACI making the discount clearer on the website; discussed ACI's website;\nstated many seniors and low-income qualifying people might not know about the discount\nprocess; she would like ACI's website to clearly indicate the discount; she appreciates the\nwork performed; expressed concern about profits and ACI being a private company; stated\nit is impossible to know what the profits truly are; the percentage rate is high; many people\nare not earning a 6% increase over time; when long-term contracts are presented, clearly\nshowing the numbers is important; expressed support for a one-page document clearly\nshowing the formula; stated that she does not expect anyone to review a 30-page analysis\ndocument to figure out the contract increases; 5% is a significant increase; there is not\nenough consideration for the affordability of a 5% increase; the contract should have gone\nout for bid.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the rate changes over the past 15 years have included\npositive changes, such as recycling and compost programs and Senate Bill (SB) 1383;\nSB1383 deals with food waste recovery and composting; the programs are the right thing to\ndo from an environmental perspective; the programs do have costs and are seen in rate\nchanges over time; the 5% is a maximum and not a set number; the rate adjustments will be\nfully vetted and discussed in the context of the calculations mentioned earlier.\nThe City Manager stated that he would like the discounts re-stated and clarified for the\npublic.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated Councilmember Herrera Spencer is correct; the 15%\ndiscount is available by contacting ACI; there is a rate stabilization portion of the agreement;\nCouncil is presented with delinquent accounts on an annual basis; there are not many\ndelinquent accounts; Council has the opportunity to make decisions about how the City\nmoves forward with said accounts.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the crux of the matter is the question of extending on a no-\ncompete sole source contract to ACI or if Council should open the matter up to a\ncompetitive bid process; there are a number of other outfits which might be able to deliver\nservices to Alameda; in order for him to evaluate the question and judge how to make the\nbest decision, he needs to know that there is solid data provided to support the decision one\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-17", "page": 14, "text": "worked through details to provide a good deal for Alameda.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated the City has worked hard to get where it is today; the\nCity has gone through several renditions of the DDA and has had to amend it over the years in\norder to adjust to changing conditions and the market; expressed support for the work that has\nbrought the project to its current state; stated that she will be supporting the matter.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she supported the project in 2015; expressed\nconcern about the project building units for the middle class to purchase; stated the possibility\ncontinues not to occur; affordable housing units being offered are rentals, not for purchase;\nhousing units for sale are very expensive; homes will cost over $1 million and will not provide\nhousing for the middle; discussed the cost of rental units at Alameda Point; stated inflation is the\nhighest it has been in 40 years; Council is being asked to trust that staff will confirm affordable\nhousing units will be built since the units are not being tethered to market rate or requiring a\nfinancial investment; the approach is wrong; expressed concern about aspects of the project;\nstated members of the armed forces will not be able to afford the housing units; the middle class\nwill not be able to rent or purchase at Alameda Point; affordability is a problem; the City needs\nto offer housing for the middle to purchase; expressed concern about the units lacking rent\ncontrol; stated rents will increase; the City continues to leave the middle behind, which is\na\nproblem; expressed support for a public arts center; stated the matter is related to finding ways\nto house the middle; she will not continue to support the matter.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the former Alameda NAS being active, operating military base;\nstated people who were not active military did not visit the base; Alameda Point did not feel like\na part of the rest of the City; an important part of redeveloping Alameda Point is making it a\nplace that seamlessly feels like a part of Alameda; the opening of Waterfront Park joined\nhundreds of Alameda residents at a place with potential; the City has been able to accomplish\nso much; discussed the ribbon cutting for Corsair Flats and Starling; stated APP has worked\nwith the City to accomplish so much; she has every faith APP will move forward and reach the\nfinish line; discussed a meeting with the Veterans Administration (VA) related to the Alameda\nColumbarium; stated that she has been able to share the developments at Alameda Point and\nthe progress made to help veterans; the stakes are high; the City would lose much if it does not\nmove forward in keeping the project alive; changes to conditions and demands are occurring;\nprojects must adapt; expressed support for the project.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(22-354) Recommendation to Provide Direction on a Proposal to Develop a Guaranteed Basic\nIncome Pilot Program; and\n(22-354 A) Resolution No. 15909, \"Appropriate $4,600,000 of American Rescue Plan Act of\n2021 Funds for a Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot Program.\" Adopted.\nThe Development Managers gave a Power Point Presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 17, 2022\n14", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2006-02-13", "page": 8, "text": "work with the project as a whole. Staff would be happy to work with the applicant in this regard.\nVice President Cook wished to ensure that the applicant did not take a design that worked well in a\ndifferent setting and insert it into a waterfront setting that may not be as appropriate as it could be. She\nwould like the Board's comments to be addressed without compromising the building standards set by the\nCity.\nPresident Cunningham noted that the Board could vote on this item as presented, and the applicant could\nappeal it to the City Council, or that the project could be continued and brought back to the Board at the\nnext meeting. Mr. Grayson requested a continuance.\nMs. Woodbury noted that the Board would hear comments on the Draft EIR on the Northern Waterfront\nat the next meeting. President Cunningham requested that this be the first item on the agenda; Mr. Garrison\nconfirmed that as a continued item, it would be the first item on the agenda.\nM/S Kohlstrand/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting of February 27,\n2006.\nAYES - 5 (McNamara absent); NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0\nPlanning Board Minutes\nPage 8\nFebruary 13, 2006", "path": "PlanningBoard/2006-02-13.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-16", "page": 19, "text": "work out at the proposed location, the location can be revoked; emergency housing is needed\nfor people now which calls for less consideration of other factors; concentration of services at\nAlameda Point is a problem; the proposed site is only three units; housing must be provided for\nsingle people, not just families; urged Council to move forward with the sites and provide\nadequate staffing: William Smith, Alameda.\nStated the Island needs to share in the responsibility to help the unhoused population; all of\nAlameda is a family neighborhood; concerns were raised about bringing in crime and unsafety;\npeople are part of the community when they receive services and care; expressed concern over\nthe comments: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.\nExpressed support for comments provided by speakers Smith and Anderson; stated that he is\nsympathetic to people who live at Alameda Point where services are being concentrated; people\neither have inherent value and the right to dignity or not; the determination of value is not\ndependent on being a member of a family or not; people have value and deserve dignity: Josh\nGeyer, Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess 9:42 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:58 p.m.\n(21-753) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of allowing 5 minutes for Jonathan\nRussell, BACS, to give a presentation.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella - 1.]\nMr. Russell gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated concerns from residents have related to a lack of\ncommunication for the project; inquired how BACS will work with neighbors to\ncommunicate, and the anticipated communication model.\nThe Community Development Director responded staff has scheduled a community\nmeeting on November 29th to share ideas and answer questions; stated the information\nis posted on the City website; the meeting will be the initial opportunity for staff to\nengage with the community; staff can provide an additional community meetings if\nneeded; if the program moves forward, community members will have easy access and\na continued line to communicate concerns with BACS.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the meeting was scheduled, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded staff just put the meeting together in order\nto address concerns.\nMr. Russell stated BACS believes the program is a community conversation and needs\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 16, 2021\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-16.pdf"}
{"body": "RecreationandParkCommission", "date": "2011-10-13", "page": 2, "text": "work for them.\nChair Restagno stated that he thought it was a maximum of 30 days. Mr. McEachern\nstated that even the 30 days is a problem due to the timeline. The other issue is that\nthere are only two locations allowed to hang the banners. Director Lillard stated that\nthere are three locations which are Krusi, Lincoln, and Washington Parks. Mr.\nMcEachern stated that in the past they have tried to recruit more girls from the west end\nand they used to put a banner on the fence at the pump station on Ninth Street, but are\nnot allowed to use that location any more. Director Lillard stated that they could use the\nfence on Central Avenue at Washington Park. Mr. McEachern stated that they would\nlike to use Ruby Bridges but according to the policy they are not allowed to do so\nanymore. Also, the fence at Krusi is 300 feet long and to be able to only have one - six\nfoot sign at a time is a little restrictive.\nLast year there was a softball tournament held at Krusi Park for the first time and there\nwere over 300 people from outside of the city who attended. At that time, there were\nthree banners made with the ARPD/AGSA logo on them to go on each field. In the fall,\nwhen AGSA has their regular season they would like to leave the banners up on each\nfield, off the diamonds, and leave them up through the season (January-June). Director\nLillard stated that if the banners are on the fields it would not be a problem. AGSA can\ndo that which is similar to what Alameda High School does at Lincoln Park.\nChair Restagno stated he did not think that there was a limit to having only one banner.\nDirector Lillard stated that ARPD is trying to limit it to one banner in case there were\nmultiple organizations.\nChair Restagno stated that with the locations being Washington, Lincoln, and Krusi\nParks that would only leave Ruby Bridges that was not being used. Mr. McEachern\nstated that in the past they have also used the AP Multipurpose Field. Chair Restagno\nstated that he and the Commission are open to looking at what is reasonable.\nCommissioner Delaney stated that it would seem logical for AGSA to outline in writing\nwhat their requests are and then bring it back to the Commission for a decision. That\nway there will be something in writing and guidelines to move forward.\nMary Anderson, Alameda resident, stated that she did not get to the two public\nmeetings in June where the Park Master Plan was presented and asked if she could\nhave a copy. Director Lillard stated that the draft will come before the Recreation &\nPark Commission at their November meeting. Ms. Anderson asked if there was any\ninformation online. There was reference to an online survey. Director Lillard stated that\nthe consultants have completed the online survey. He stated that Ms. Anderson could\nstill submit items to the ARPD Office and staff can get the information to the\nconsultants.\nMs. Anderson asked for clarification if the Commission will be talking about the Land\nSwap tonight. Director Lillard stated that he will just be providing the Deal Points.\nMs. Anderson asked if the fields are obtained out at the Cowan land how will that affect\nplans for fields at Alameda Point. Director Lillard stated that in the Draft Park Master\nPlan, preliminary release, it shows a shortage of fields right now and predicts an even\nmore severe shortage in 10 years. ARPD will need every location that they can find.\nThere will be fields needed on the old Beltline property and some out at Alameda Point.\nRecreation & Park Commission Mtg.\n2\nMinutes - Thursday, October 13, 2011", "path": "RecreationandParkCommission/2011-10-13.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2008-05-12", "page": 6, "text": "work done in the business park being reversed by the presence of this development. He\nnoted that staff estimated that these homes would need to sell for at least $650,000 for the\nCity to break even on its cost to service the new development. He was not convinced the\nhomes would sell for that amount, and believed there may be a major financial deficit that\nwould not favor the City. He did not believe the development would be compatible with the\nMaster Plan and the zoning, would compromise the City's Master Plan for economic\ngrowth, would drive future business away, would damage existing investors, and would\nreduce employment and economy, thus having a negative impact on revenue streams to the\nCity. He believed this plan would only benefit the developer.\nPresident Cook noted that Seth Kostek, Santa Clara Systems, Inc., 2060 North Loop Road,\nand Clinton Abbott, Allergy Research Group, 2300 North Loop, ceded their time to Mr.\nGrant.\nMs. Susan Davis, Donsuemor, Inc., 2080 North Loop Road, spoke in opposition to this\nproject. She noted that they relocated to this business park in February 2007 from\nEmeryville, where they had been for more than 20 years. She had witnessed the intrinsic\nincompatibilities that came with residential encroachment on businesses, which had been\ninitiated by that city to create a vibrant live-work community. She noted that she had been\nasked to contribute her ideas to the city's vision, which she noted was very supportive of her\nbusiness remaining in Emeryville. She noted that in reality, those zoning choices regarding\ntruck routes, business operation hours, loading/unloading areas, and location of idling trucks\nultimately led to her business leaving Emeryville. She chose Alameda because of this\nbusiness park, which provided what her business and employees needed. She noted that\nAlameda provided a good quality of life for her employees.\nMs. Diane Smahlik, Ettore Products Co., 2100 North Loop Road, spoke in opposition to this\nproject. She noted that this business park was the ideal location for their company and its\nemployees. She believed that Alameda was a wonderful location, but did not believe that\nputting housing adjacent to manufacturing was a good idea, and that there could be more\nthan 400 people in the neighborhood. She noted that while retail and residential may be able\nto co-exist, that manufacturing and residential was not a good mix. She was very concerned\nabout the liability regarding the truck traffic, as well as graffiti and theft.\nMr. Brent Salomon, Allergy Research Group, 2300 North Loop Road, spoke in opposition\nto this project. He noted that they had originally been located in an industrial park\nin\nHayward, but that the area changed in the mid-90s. They left that environment in 2003,\narriving in Alameda, which was a very good move for them. He was opposed to the\nproposed proximity of the residential neighborhood to the manufacturing area. He noted that\nthe CC&R vote was controlled by the developer, and that the businesses did not have a\nvoice in that decision.\nMr. Jim Grimes, Peet's Coffee and Tea, 1400 Park Avenue, Emeryville, spoke in opposition\nto this project. He noted that Peet's moved into this business park because of what it offered,\nand he noted that it was a model business park for other communities. He preferred this\nbusiness park because of its proximity to existing transportation, as well as the presence of\nPage 6 of 15", "path": "PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-03-16", "page": 13, "text": "work and research done by Alameda Junior Golf.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates efforts made; the entire golf\ncomplex will be discussed as a whole; a proposal has been submitted by good people\nwith a lot of expertise; a critical part of the golf course includes having a par 3 for\nbeginners, a driving range, 18 hole courses, and a clubhouse; that he wants to see how\nto make everything work together.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 10:58 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:15 p.m.\n*\n(10-125) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Enter into\nNegotiations with Kemper Sports Management for the Long-Term Management and\nOperation of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nBen Blake, Kemper Sports Management, gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the golf course has 36 championship holes; 111,000\nrounds are played per year; inquired what is the capacity percentage.\nMr. Blake responded in 2003, 160,000 rounds were played, which was 67% [capacity].\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the projection is that rounds will remain flat\nfor the next four years because of the Metropolitan Golf Links.\nMr. Blake responded rounds will be flat or slightly up; stated the hope is to get to a level\nof 130,000 rounds.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how much would need to be charged to have\neverything work out well.\nMr. Blake responded that he thinks that the same rates could be charged with 27 holes\nto still make the numbers work; operating costs are lower; a lot of land needs to be\nmaintained; the irrigation system is in disrepair; operating costs will go down with\nimprovements.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what would be the price differential by keeping the 36\nholes; further inquired whether the current $30 charge would rise to $45 with capital\ninfusion, Mr. Blake responded a round would cost closer to $50.\nThe Interim City Manager stated currently, the average round [fee] is $30; $38 per\nround is needed [to cover costs]; putting $500,000 into capital each year would increase\nthe cost to approximately $48 per round; figures are based on 120,000 rounds; both\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMarch 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-04-01", "page": 2, "text": "wondering which programs will be cut; she hopes that the School\nDistrict has strong support for the proposed measure in June.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council would be voting on\nthe matter at the next Council meeting.\nThe City Manager responded Council would be voting on the matter at\nthe first Council meeting in May.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the resolution would be to support\nand endorse Measure H, to which the City Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the May Council Meeting\ndate was okay with Mr. Schaff, to which Mr. Schaff responded in the\naffirmative.\n(08-131) Presentation by the Secretary of the California Department\nof Food and Agriculture and the Director of the Light Brown Apple\nMoth Program on the Apple Moth.\nA.G. Kawamura, Secretary of the California Department of Food and\nAgriculture, gave a brief presentation.\nDr. Bob Dowell, Director of the Light Brown Apple Moth Program\n(submitted handout) gave a Power Point presentation.\nOpponents (Not in favor of aerial spraying to eradicate the Light\nBrown Apple Moth) : Carolina Rogers, Alameda; Stuart Dodgshon,\nAlameda; Chloe Ashley, Alameda; T'Hud Weber, Alameda, (submitted\npetition) ; Simi Sikka, Fremont (submitted handout) ; Stanley\nSchiffman, Alameda; Jane Kelley, Berkeley; Tom Kelley, Berkeley\nBernard Clark, Alameda Helen Kozoriz, stopthespray.org Michael\nJohn Torrey, Alameda; Mary Jane Pryor, Alameda Victoria Ashley,\nAlameda; Jim Hoffman, Alameda; Rebecca Hall-Crosby, Alameda Irma\nMarin-Nolan, Alameda; Cathy Kordetzky; Daria Schwarzschild,\nAlameda; Maria Morales, El Sobrante; Frank Egger; Constance Barker,\nEnvironmental Health Network of California; Lynn Elliott-Harding,\nOakland.\nCouncil requested that the matter be placed on a future Council\nagenda for action.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 1, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-07-25", "page": 8, "text": "wondered if there were any other natural synergies in terms of job centers throughout the county.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked about the corridors (one in red and blue) depicted for BRT and\nRapid Bus. He was curious about beginning the line at Alameda Point and going to Fruitvale\nBART station for both cases. On the aerial shot, there is a red line going through the tube to\nOakland and another aerial shot of the blue line showing that as well. He wanted clarification on\nwhat was being depicted there and if it was intended to work in conjunction.\nStaff Khan explained that the BRT would be brought before the Commission in September after\nfurther analysis. Staff reviewed the two corridors because the General Plan included the need to\nconnect Alameda Point with the 12th Street BART and another connection to the Fruitvale\nBART Station.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that when he was originally presented with this information,\nthere was a study on the AC Transit Line 51 and how that line could be sped up. He does not\nknow what happened to that presentation, but there was talk to convert Line 51 to a rapid bus.\nSo, he wondered if the two corridors would supplement Line 51 or replace it.\nStaff Khan responded that they have been talking about Line 51 for both Berkeley and Alameda.\nAC Transit received $10 million from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) three\nmonths ago from their Transit Performance Initiative Program funded from federal sources.\nAlameda is analyzing Line 51 to see how to reduce delays along the corridor. Also, AC Transit is\ninterested in analyzing whether the corridor should continue on Santa Clara Avenue or move to\nLincoln Avenue, but the analysis will be discussed in September.\nCommissioner Schatmeier commented that the BRT is further away from the center part of the\nisland and essentially located on the north end of the island along the Beltway and Clement\nAvenue. He felt that should be acknowledged and discussed later. Furthermore, an analysis of the\ncost and benefits from each alternative should be discussed.\nStaff Khan responded that the red and blue lines presented in the report are just the corridors and\nthey do not represent identified BRT or Rapid Bus service.\nCommissioner Schatmeier explained that staff has a lot of statistics on ridership and behavior in\nthe City and they make decisions on deploying transportation not on transit demand, but by\nfunding availability. So, when analyzing the cost and benefits, he would like staff to be cautious\nand recognize the limitations of the travel model so that they recognize the benefits that may not\nbe measured numerically or by the travel model.\nStaff Khan responded that inclusion of Transportation Demand Management and enhanced\ntransit service measures could double the base line numbers based on the data.\nCommissioner Schatmeier exclaimed that the numbers are standardized and they do not\nrecognize the ideas that he was talking about.\nCommissioner Vargas said the plan does not point out Bay Farm since it is a City of Alameda\nPage 8 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-07-25.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-01-23", "page": 4, "text": "wondered how Public Works staff could market or visibly guide pedestrians to the remaining\ncrosswalks.\nStaff Naclerio explained that they developed a Safe Route to School maps for all the schools.\nThey would enhance those maps to direct students to the existing marked crosswalks. He\nmentioned that Caltrans would have to approve the removal of the crosswalks as well as any\nother improvements that they are recommending. Also, he mentioned that the Bayview Home\nOwners Association could promote the use of the crosswalks through their newsletter.\nCommissioner Bertken stated that all indications of the original crosswalks would be removed to\nindicate to pedestrians that they should not cross there. He brought up that a barricade could be\nincluded to prevent pedestrians from crossing. Ultimately, he wondered how staff would handle\nthe process.\nStaff Naclerio explained that they would remove and black out the crosswalks and remove the\nsigns. He did not recommend installing barricades.\nCommissioner Bellows moved to accept staff recommendations. Commissioner Schatmeier\nseconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0.\n5B.\nResident Appeal of Public Works Staff's Decision to Not Install an All-Way Stop\nControl at the Intersection of Robert Davey Junior Drive and Channing Way\nStaff Naclerio presented an overview of the staff report.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff if they received public input about the proposed mitigation of\nextending the bike lane stripes.\nStaff Naclerio replied that staff has not and they would use this meeting for community input\nabout the proposal.\nCommissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comment.\nRed Wetherhill, Harbor Bay Resident, veteran architect, felt that the City of Alameda and the\nstate were using the wrong criteria, which moves vehicles first and foremost. He felt vehicles\ntravel way too fast when exiting off of Channing Way with a blind corner and vehicles go\nquickly around the bend on Robert Davey Junior Drive. He wanted staff to continuously observe\nthe area because it is a problem for pedestrians. He mentioned that 15 to 20 years ago, residents\nsubmitted a request for a stop sign for this same intersection. They received a run down from a\n\"technocrat\" that the average speed was 32 miles per hour (mph), and the street did not qualify\nfor a four-way stop. He then asked if the maximum speed limit was posted as 25 mph, then how\ncould the City count it as an average of 32 mph. Ultimately, he felt that staff was bandaging the\nproblem by modifying the crosswalks instead of policing more stringently along Robert Davey\nJunior Drive.\nTransportation Commission Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 14", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-01-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-01", "page": 20, "text": "without transit and traffic solutions; job one is paying for transit solutions; the project will\nnot be successful if there is not enough money to pay for transit solutions.\nCouncilmember/Board\nMember/Commissioner\nMatarrese\nstated\nthe\nfirst\nrecommendation in the staff report is to direct the Planning Board to provide an advisory\nrecommendation on the OEA; that he has no faith that any amount of money would\nsolve the issue of getting people who are in the 4,800 housing units on and off the\nisland; having the Planning Board provide an advisory recommendation is important;\nfinancing can be reviewed in parallel because financing needs to be based on the\nproject.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether staff is\nassuming that SunCal would provide a complete application by the Planning Board\nmeeting, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the\nnegative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated generally, the Planning\nBoard provides a recommendation to Council based on a complete application; a work\nsession or scoping session would take place if an application is incomplete; a formal\nvote would not be taken; a policy determination would be needed without a formal\napplication; making a policy determination is the Council's job.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the application on file is not\ndeemed complete yet; the matter is an advisory recommendation.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what the Planning Board\nwould be reviewing if the application were incomplete.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the application includes a General Plan\namendment and rezoning for the property; stated Council cannot take action on\nentitlement without an advisory recommendation from the Planning Board; Council's\naction would be to either deny or not deny the request and let the process continue;\nstaff wanted to provide Council with the option of extending or not extending the\nExclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) or not given the timeframe of the ENA; staff\nthought it was important to get advice from the Planning Board before the hearing;\nhaving a completed application is not required in order to get the Planning Board's\nadvice.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether a Planning\nBoard recommendation is required for General Plan amendments or rezoning, to which\nthe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a determination couldn't\nbe made without a completed application.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\n9\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 1, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-07-21", "page": 18, "text": "without any input from the City and, therefore, will be contractual and not subject to\nunlawful detainer.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed concern about agreements being substituted for\nleases; noted there is unequal bargaining power between landlords and tenants;\noutlined a tenant being subject to eviction.\nThe City Attorney stated the landlord cannot require a tenant to enter into an\nagreement; noted the agreement must be made voluntarily; should a landlord require\nsuch agreement, the requirement would violate the fair housing law.\nExpressed support for the extension of repayment; stated this action is a necessary\ncomponent of the recent declaration of racism as a public health emergency given the\ndisproportionate impact of COVID-19 on communities of Color due to systemic racism in\nterms of work, health and housing; many renters are confused about their rights under\nthe various ordinances; urged greater effort be made to inform tenants of legal rights\nand resources available; outlined communication difficulties; urged a mailing be sent out\nin multiple languages and no agreement be encouraged: Catherine Pauling, Alameda\nRenters Coalition.\nDiscussed experience staffing a tenant-landlord counseling line; stated phones lines are\nflooded with calls from those unable to pay rent; noted leases are being broken; paying\ndebt is quickly becoming overwhelming: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.\nUrged Council to vote yes on the extension of the repayment period; stated the need for\ntenants to have protections is growing; urged Council to consider the strategy of\ntranslating the unpaid rent into consumer debt as adopted by other cities and counties:\nGrover Wehman-Brown, East Bay Housing Organization (EBHO).\nExpressed support for the matter; discussed experience as a renter and artist in\nAlameda; stated showing compassion to residents is important; urged Council to vote\nyes: Kevyn Lauren, Alameda.\nUrged Council to vote yes on the extension; stated it is important to protect renters:\nAlexia Arocha, Alameda.\nComment read into the record:\nStated property owners are not the bankers of tenants; stated it is up to the City to pay\nrents through subsidized payments: Rosalinda Corvi, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance, giving direction to staff to\nreturn with an ordinance which will allow the City to treat any side agreements and\nunpaid rent as consumer debt.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJuly 21, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-07-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-04-20", "page": 27, "text": "without a vote of the people under the new revision of the law; inquired whether Mr.\nFaye would dispute that the State density bonus law applied in Alameda.\nMr. Faye responded the issue is the implementation of the density bonus provisions;\nstated given the prohibitions on certain kinds of attached dwellings because of Measure\nA, Charter Article 26, the ability to modify the City Charter to implement the law was not\nenacted by the City until the middle of December; the election would have been moot\nhad that been enacted sooner and had the State law provisions that caused the City to\nenact the modification to the Code in the middle of December.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City has a fundamental disagreement with Mr.\nFaye; the City has a different understanding of the applicability of the State's density\nbonus law; Mr. Faye believes that the State density bonus law did not apply in Alameda\nuntil December.\nMr. Faye stated that is not what he is saying; Measure A prevents certain kinds of\nattached dwelling units; in order to modify the City Charter, Council enacted an\nordinance in the middle of December and implemented State law that permits the City\nCharter to be amended by Council, not requiring a vote of the people; the election would\nhave been irrelevant had the particular provision of the Code been changed before the\nproject proponents submitted signatures.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there is any difference in how State law would\nhave been applied before December; requested an explanation from the City\nAttorney/Legal Counsel; also requested an explanation of the application of the State\ndensity bonus law.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated when the Council discussed\nthe density bonus in December, the City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that State law\nnullified Measure A for the City and State law trumps the Charter.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that she said State law pre-empts the Charter;\ndensity bonus is a matter of Statewide concern; it does not mean that Measure A is set\naside; in order to implement bonus market rate units, someone could need and request\na waiver of the multi-family restriction; the same was true before December and has\nbeen true for twenty years.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the ordinance was tailored to\nAlameda; discussions involved exempting the 15% requirement if there is inclusionary\nhousing; inquired whether said issue was unique to Alameda.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether said issue is in\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n7\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 20, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2007-11-13", "page": 7, "text": "with two comprehensive documents: the Master Plan that showed the applicants' long-\nterm plans for the site, and a comprehensive up to date EIR.\nNo action was taken.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was copied on a letter from StopWaste.org\nto the Planning Director with respect to the pursuit of green building ordinances. She\nrequested that the City follow up on this issue at the next meeting.\nMr. Thomas advised that an RFQ had been released to advise staff how to proceed with\nvarious ordinances, which would help staff return to the Planning Board with as many\noptions as possible. Staff was considering the full range of options, such as requirements\nfor new civic buildings and changes to the Building Code. Staff would provide a more\nformal update at the next meeting. He assured Board member Ezzy Ashcraft that staff\nwould move as expeditiously as possible.\nPresident Cook noted that she had received literature about APA publications and APA\nmembership. Mr. Thomas noted that staff would look into that issue.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard Member Lynch noted that because there were more buildings along harbor Bay\nParkway, he had noticed a great deal more trash. He suggested that the City consider\nmore trash cans, and inquired who managed the trash collection in that area. Mr. Thomas\nnoted that he would find out.\na.\nOral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force (Board\nMembers Cook/Kohlstrand)\nMr. Thomas provided an update on this item, and noted that the last meeting on October\n24, 2007, had been well-attended. SunCal had made the same presentation that had been\nmade before the Planning Board; they presented the project's history and the consultants\npresented their thoughts. The geotechnical consultant emphasized the Bay mud issue, and\nthe flooding constraints were discussed. The topo maps were in the process of being\nrevised because they were outdated. The consultant stated that Alameda Point had sunk\nsomewhat. He noted that the audience received Peter Calthorpe's presentation very well.\nHe had emphasized sustainability and regionalism for Alameda Point, and kept future\ngenerations in mind. He noted that there was no interaction after the presentation. He\nnoted that the next meeting would be held at the O Club on December 13, 2007, and they\nplanned to address a range of development scenarios.\nb.\nOral Status Report regarding the Oakland/Chinatown Advisory Committee (Board\nMember Mariani).\nPage 7 of 8", "path": "PlanningBoard/2007-11-13.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 23, "text": "with the studies.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated funds need to be allocated for the\nmodel : ; inquired whether the policies need to be tested using the\nnew model.\nThe City Engineer responded Council would need to adopt the\npolicies in order to have a General Plan amendment; the traffic\nanalysis needs to be done if policies are adopted.\nThe Public Works Director stated Council would be giving direction\nto begin the analysis of the policies as well as the previous\npolicies; information would come back to Council through the\nPlanning Board and the Transportation Commission with a\nrecommendation as to whether or not there are certain intersections\nthat Council may want to accept a higher level of service because\nof the recognition of the encouragement of pedestrian or bicycle\naccess or transit; Council would be allocating the money to begin\nthe analysis.\nlouncilmember Matarrese stated the policies are not policies but\nare a test suit of data or parameters that are going to be run\nthrough a model to see what happens at the end of the model.\nThe Public Works Director stated the policies might eventually\nbecome the approved policies.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether currently the policies are\nnot policies, to which the Pubic Works Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Transportation Commission Chair stated the Transportation\nCommission's intent is that the policies are specific policies that\nwould be tested before the policies are being adopted; the\nTransportation Commission was hopeful that the Council would accept\nthe policies as guidelines for reviewing EIRs.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he wished to modify his motion.\nThe Public Works Director stated the current General Plan needs to\nbe used to review the EIR; the policies could not be used as\nguidelines if the policies are not consistent with the General\nPlan.\nMayor Johnson stated the next step would be to amend the General\nPlan if Council likes the way the policies work.\nThe Public Works Director stated the process would be to amend the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-03-09", "page": 8, "text": "with the new buildings, but suggested that the houses could be reconfigured to incorporate\nmore open space into the area. There are other, less gracious issues with the design of\nthe houses that also need to be addressed, including the small private balconies on some\nof the units. Board Member Burton also said that Alameda does not need any air\nconditioning units for the houses, and suggested that it would help the developer's plans to\nexclude them in the houses.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster said he agreed with Board Member Burton's comments. He said\nthat the walkability of the community is an important factor in the neighborhood. He said\nthat the density could be lowered a little bit in order to increase the open space on the site.\nBoard Member K\u00f6ster asked if some ground-floor commercial space could be incorporated\ninto the new buildings if possible.\nBoard Member Knox White said that there was too much asphalt and not enough open\nspace in the proposed development. He said that he is confused by the size of the\nhousing, and questioned if the sizes of the proposed housing is appropriate for the\nneighborhood. He suggested building a through street and building housing along that\nstreet instead of having four cul-de-sacs.\nVice President Alvarez said that the major entrance to Eagle Avenue needs to be moved\ncloser to Mulberry Street. The architecture on Eagle, Willow, and Clement Avenues are all\ndifferent from each other, and the developers need to marry the three different\narchitectural styles in this new development. She suggested that the neighbors concerned\nabout parking organize themselves as they did at the Del Monte.\nBoard Member Burton said that the two-story buildings along Willow Street are nicely\nintegrated with the existing neighborhoods, but the townhouses with the first floor\nbedrooms are not truly in-line with universal design guidelines.\nPresident Henneberry said that there is unanimity that this is a good project for the City,\nbut it is not ready in its present form. He said he looks forward to seeing an update of this\nproject.\n8. MINUTES: None\n9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n9-A. 2015-405\nZoning Administrator and Design Review: Recent Actions and\nDecisions.\n10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\n11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\n11-A 2015-1341\nReport from the Alameda Point Site A-Ad-Hoc Subcommittee\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 8\nMarch 9, 2015", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-03-09.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-03-07", "page": 13, "text": "with the inequity and would like to see the policy change implemented sooner rather\nthan later.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the matter is no longer a referral, it is Council\ndirection; he saw a flaw in the Oak tree situation in that the requirement of a stated\nreason was not present; the policy needs to be tightened up and Council has the\nopportunity to do that now; he does not agree with having two Councilmembers call an\nitem for review; there has to be a mechanism of appeal that does not require two\nCouncilmembers; the City has very strict guidance not to pre-judge evidence that comes\nfrom the review.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated having two Councilmembers call an item for\nreview does not mean they are pre-judging an issue; saying an issue deserves a\nsecond look might yield a different result or make the project better after the second\nreview; making the appeal process financially available to citizens is important; she\nstrongly believes if people opposing a project do not have the financial resource to call\nfor an appeal, that they could approach a Councilmember who could recruit a second\nCouncilmember to call the project for review; these are reasonable questions with\nreasonable answers.\nVice Mayor Vella stated she thinks there is a lot of presumption that more than one\nCouncilmember is on board; it is not a huge ask to send the same request to multiple\nCouncilmembers, as part of the due diligence when involved in a project; she is inclined\nto support the change, which is feasible, will strengthen the process and ensures there\nis merit to the calls for review.\nMayor Spencer stated that she will not be supporting the referral; it is important to look\nat the facts; the Planning Board makes approximately 44 decisions a year,\napproximately 10% of the cases are called for review; changing the process would also\nbe a Brown Act violation as Councilmembers can only speak to one other\nCouncilmember; issues are worthy for Council to weigh in on; the Planning Board\nmembers are appointed, not elected by the people; the Council's opportunity to weigh in\nis a call for review; the only way to do the due diligence is for issues to come to Council;\nit is important for Council to protect said ability.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not suggesting Council does away with\nthe process; more deliberation is needed; the call for review for the cell phone project\nwas an exercise of a lot of time spent, when State regulations prohibited change;\nCouncil would have known if a second opinion was given.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Council considering revising the\ncall for review process to appeal Board and Commission decisions by requiring that two,\nrather than just one, City Councilmembers initiate a call for review and state a reason\nfor the appeal.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMarch 7, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-03-07.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2012-10-08", "page": 4, "text": "with the grocery tenant and Marina Village. Alameda Landing has the only direct\ntransportation to center.\nHe is concerned about the effect the new center will have on the Marina Village center.\nBoard member K\u00f6ster added that hopefully the center will complement the future retail\ndevelopment at Alameda Point.\nBoard member Ezzy Ashcraft stated that competition can be a healthy thing, but would\nnot like a retailer to hurt Marina Village Shopping Center. She stated that she would like\nto see different tenants than those at South Shore. She feels that the West End can\nsupport another grocery based on the planned future development.\nBoard member Henneberry stated that regarding the closure of Luckys at Southshore,\nthe company at the time was selling off and closing any stores that were not making a\nprofit. It wasn't the Safeway that put them out of business.\nPresident Zuppan agreed that we need to stress to the City Council that the new\nretailers not harm current businesses in the area. She asked about the Urban Decay\nStudy and the effect of the new center on Marina Village merchants.\nMs. Herman stated that it was unlikely there would be closures because of this center,\nbut also looked at Alameda as a whole.\nPresident Zuppan thanked the participants for the components of the report. Concerned\nwith the switch to non-taxable and suggested looking for taxable retailers. She stated\nthat it would be good to see a sales tax break out reported to City Council.\n7-B. Public Hearing on an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for 69\nresidential parcels and a Tentative Map at 1551 Buena Vista Avenue\n(APN72-384-21). The Planning Board will consider approval of an\nInitialStudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Marina Cove II, 69 residential\nparcels and a Tentative Map within the area bounded by Ohlone Street, Buena\nVista Avenue, Clement Avenue and Entrance Way (currently occupied by the\nChipman Company). The site is zoned R-4-PD, neighborhood residential with a\nPlanned Development overlay. Applicant is requesting a continuance to the\nmeeting of October 22, 2012.\n7-C\nPlanned Development Amendment: Sign Program application - PLN12-\n0280- 433 & 501 Buena Vista (Summer House Apartments). Review an\napplication to amend the Planned Development in order to create a Sign\nProgram for the Summer House Apartment Complex. Applicant is requesting\na continuance to the meeting of October 22, 2012.\n8. MINUTES:\nApproved Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 5\nOctober 8, 2012", "path": "PlanningBoard/2012-10-08.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2012-05-03", "page": 3, "text": "with the design, he found that it was overkill; he did not see the safety hazards there. He hopes\nthe Commission supports the recommendation of the staff. However, he is dumbfounded to see\nthat this project had legs and he does not understand it.\nGordon McConnell, Fairview Avenue resident, stated he attended two out of the three public\nmeetings. Public Works were not responsive to the residents' views, and the overall public\nconsensus of the second meeting was to do nothing. He called into question the integrity of the\nCity Manager and the grant application. He stated there was an initial meeting with residents to\ndevelop minor traffic calming measures but not to the extent that the Public Works Department\nproposed.\nPaula Kaneshiro explained that she did collect signatures to end the project and one of the things\nthat she appreciated was the fact that residents wanted some type of traffic calming on their\nstreet. She also questioned why Public Works continued with the project when the public stated\nthey did not want the project to continue. Finally, she said it started as a traffic calming effort\nand she does not understand why the City went out for a Safe Routes to School grant.\nJames Tham stated this project is doing the wrong thing. The intersection is already safe and he\nhas traveled through the intersection by bike, foot and car for the last 40 years. He felt the City\nshould have been frugal with their money and not waste with staff work hours. Thus, he believes\nthe project is wasteful and other projects should require much more attention than this one. He\nencouraged the Commission to look at the Public Works Department and review their business\nplan.\nJim Anglom has lived near the project for more than 30 years and he does not want to see the\nproject proceed. The project would bring reduce property values and parking spaces.\nFurthermore, he believes additional improvements to the intersection would create complications\nand a liability to the City.\nCommissioner Moehring asked for any additional comments or questions from the Commission.\nCommissioner Bertken stated he believes the public provided plenty of information for the\nCommission to proceed with a decision. However, there was one question about a public\nstatement regarding secret meetings between City staff and a select number of individuals.\nMatthew Naclerio replied that staff is prohibited by the Sunshine Ordinance to conduct meetings\ninvolving a decision to proceed with a project without public notice. However, initial meetings\nwere conducted with residents who brought forth the petition, which is standard procedure.\nStaff Khan replied City staff does this for other projects when they receive a petition and they\ntalk to the petitioners and then they go to the community about everything staff is proposing.\nCommissioner Miley applauded the public for coming out to speak about the project and it is\nimportant to receive public opinion. He questioned how the City prioritized its projects and he\nknows that staff is working on the list currently. He asked if this type of project falls within the\npriority list and if not, then why not.\nPage 3 of 5", "path": "TransportationCommission/2012-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2005-09-21", "page": 2, "text": "with the Risk Manager and they are appropriate to post. It was mentioned that\npeople might not know what the phrase \"pace of play\" represents. The General\nManager responded that the volunteer marshals on the tee explain the pace of play\npolicy to the customers. The General Manager also mentioned that the Complex\nis\nlooking at purchasing clocks to place on the courses to help with the pace of\nplay. The clocks will be on #1, #6, #12, and #18 of the 18 hole courses and when\nthe golfer arrives at those holes the clock should read their tee time if they are\nplaying at the correct pace. The suggestion was made to have a prize for golfers\nwho play in less than 4 hours, possibly a ball marker. Also suggested was to\ninclude the phrase \"keep up with the group in front of you\" in the golf carts.\nAfter discussion the following changes were made to the policy board:\nTo make your experience enjoyable the following rules apply:\n1.\nAll players and spectators must check in at the Pro Shop before\nstarting play.\n2.\nDo not enter water hazards or sloughs.\n3.\nAED Medical Response units are located at EF #9, JC #5, Pro Shop\nand Driving Range buildings.\n4.\nPlease cooperate with golf course marshals at all times.\n5.\nObserve all pace of play policies. Please play \"ready\" golf.\n6.\n90-degree cart rule in effect at all times, unless otherwise specified.\n7. No spectators allowed unless approved by professional staff.\n8. Players under the age of 10 years must be accompanied by an adult or\nhave approval of professional staff.\n9. Golf or tennis shoes only. No multi-purpose athletic cleats allowed.\n10. Proper golf attire required.\n11. Please observe appropriate cell phone etiquette.\n12. No coolers. Outside alcoholic beverages are prohibited.\n13. Players and spectators use golf facilities at their own risk.\n14. Failure to follow all the rules of this Golf Complex may result in your\nremoval from the facilities.\nThe Commission approved the amended Policy Board unanimously.\n3-B\nApproval of the Revised Golf Course Management Practice Regarding a Policy\nAllowing Handicap Golfers Access to Fairways in Golf Carts. (Action Item)\nThe General Manager reported that the original Management Practice #2\nregarding the Medical/Disability Flag Access was put in place on\nNovember 9, 2004. The revision is to reflect the addition of the blue flag\nto identify the handicap golfers. The revised Management Practice #2 is\nas follows:\nPurpose\nPage 2 of 6", "path": "GolfCommission/2005-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-06-26", "page": 17, "text": "with the Neptune Park pathway.\nJohn Knox White explained that he hoped there are upcoming path improvements through\nNeptune Park because there are some real configuration issues.\nStaff Naclerio replied if the nexus is with the In and Out Burger development that is not coming\nto the Transportation Commission it should be discussed at the Planning Board because the\nCommission does not have the authority to look over those permits.\nLucy Gigli replied the reason she felt the urgency to bring the topic up because the City is\nreviewing the design of the Neptune Park pathway after they approve the IN and Out Burger\ndevelopment.\nCommissioner Miley made a recommendation to have this topic on the agenda for the next\nmeeting to have an understanding with visuals of the proposal of In and Out Burger and how that\nrelates to Marina Village Parkway and Neptune Park because that is a transportation issue.\nStaff Naclerio replied the Planning Board will make a decision on the In and Out Burger\ndevelopment, which also includes a Safeway gas station and a Chase Bank on July 22nd. The\nPlanning Board's meeting is two days before the Transportation Commission's meeting.\nAlex Nguyen recommended that staff plan to bring the topic back to the Transportation\nCommission at the next meeting because there is no certainty that the Planning Board will make\nan approval at the next meeting. So, the timing would give the Transportation Commission time\nto make comments.\nStaff Vargas replied that the Commission should leave it to staff to bring the topic to the\nCommission as a potential agenda item.\nStaff Naclerio said staff will present what they know at the time of the packet about the In and\nOut Burger development and that would include the approved alignment for Neptune Park. Then\nstaff will update the Commission on whether the Planning Board approved or continued that item\nagain.\n8.\nAdjournment\n10:04 pm\nPage 17 of 17", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-06-26.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2008-06-25", "page": 6, "text": "with the City's obligation under the Municipal Storm Water permit, and through the\nClean Water Program to control the runoff into the Bay. Staff recommended that the no-\nparking street sweeping signs be installed on this block in accordance with City policy,\nand to comply with the requirements of the Federal EPA Clean Water Act.\nCommissioner Schatmeier noted that both the appellants and the letter mentioned casual\ncar poolers, as well as Transbay bus riders. He inquired how many of the current parkers\nwere in that category. Staff Bergman replied that was anecdotal, and that hard numbers\nwere not available at this time. Staff did have boarding and alighting data from the Trans-\nBay bus at that location. The morning boardings were slightly over 100 per day, and\nabout 200 in the evening.\nCommissioner Ratto inquired whether the 1200 block of Regent Street was signed for\nstreet sweeping. Staff Bergman replied that it was, as was the 100 block.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner Krueger regarding the duration of daytime\nparking, Staff Khan replied that the parking occupancy survey was conducted at the time\nthe sweepers would go through. Commissioner Krueger suggested it would be useful to\nknow how many cars were there for the entire four hours.\nCommissioner Krueger requested further information on the amount of debris in the\ngutter. Staff Khan noted that the City was trying to determine parking impacts where\nstreet sweeping was installed, and based on that, staff recommends the restrictions, and\nidentifies the conditions of the affected streets. Staff found that there was no scientific\nway to determine the condition, but qualitative analysis observed an accumulation of\ndebris in the storm drain inlets. He noted that the mechanical broom was much stronger\nthan by hand. He noted that removal of debris by hand also increased the suspension of\nparticles into the air, as compared to the sweeper, which vacuums the debris into the\ncontainment chamber.\nOpen public comment.\nMr. Rabin, appellant, noted that the area was used by carpoolers all day. When he arrives\nhome from his night shift at the hospital, he frequently had no place to park, and that cars\nparked on his corner all day long. He noted that he had to move his car to a spot two\nblocks away, and added that this was an ongoing problem for him. He understood that\nstreet sweeping was a necessity, but believed that manual sweeping would be better than\nthe street sweeper. He noted that the vehicle emits hydrocarbons, stirred debris around,\nand left a trail behind it. Some residents have complained that their cars have been\nsideswiped, and others believed that it was a revenue-enhancing practice through the\nPage 6 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2008-06-25.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-01-11", "page": 8, "text": "with the Attorney General's findings and that this leads him to believe that there is\ninsufficient information to make a decision.\nMs. Faiz, City Attorney, pointed out that the Guidelines issued by the Attorney General are\nnot binding law, just guidelines.\nBoard Member Kohlstrand asked whether the Board could approve an outright ban when\nthe policy direction from the City Council is still unknown.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft asked if the Board could continue the item, while the Board awaits\npolicy direction from City Council and staff gathers more information.\nStaff stated that the Board could continue the item, but that the Council is awaiting the\nBoard's response to assist them with making their decision.\nVice-President Autorino motioned, seconded by Board member Cunningham to extend the\nmeeting until 11:10 pm. Motion passes 7-0.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the difference between medical\nmarijuana co-operative and collective dispensaries.\nMs. Faiz, City Attorney, clarified the respective code sections.\nBoard Member Cook asked whether the Planning Board could request an extension of the\nmoratorium to allow sufficient time to consider whether to revise the ordinance.\nStaff suggested recommending approval or denial of the proposed ordinance.\nVice-President Autorino stated the Board should ask for an extension of the moratorium\nand develop an ordinance that would allow and regulate the dispensaries, as opposed to an\noutright ban. He also added the Board should ask the Council for direction.\nBoard Member Cook suggested that the Planning Board, staff of the Police Department,\nSocial Services, and the City Attorney work together to develop an appropriate set of\nregulations if the Council extends the moratorium to allow further consideration.\nBoard Member Lynch stated that the City Council should be asked whether or not a\nmoratorium should be extended and if it should be extended, what type of regulations\nshould be developed.\nThe Planning Board recommended that the City Council refer the matter back to the\nPlanning Board for further deliberation and hearings to allow time for preparation of a draft\nordinance that might allow a limited number of dispensaries in carefully controlled locations\nand under certain limited conditions.\nVice-President Autorino motioned, seconded by Board member Cunningham, to\nrecommend that the City Council reject the ordinance banning medical marijuana\ndispensaries within the City of Alameda, refer development of an ordinance that allows\nmedical marijuana dispensaries in Alameda back to staff and the Planning Board, and\nextend the moratorium prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries to allow for sufficient\nPage 8 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-01-11.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-03-30", "page": 24, "text": "with the Alameda Health Care District; stated there is a proactive tone in keeping Alameda\nHospital open; the Board of Alameda Health Care District has voted to allocate $250,000 for\nthe upcoming fiscal year for community paramedicine; discussed an update from Dr. Mini\nSwift.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nMarch 30, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-09-20", "page": 20, "text": "with something that will work for both sides.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he is satisfied with the City Attorney's response and is\nwilling to move forward.\nOn the call for the question the motion, carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(16-472) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda\nMunicipal Code by Amending Section 30-4.25(d).iii.b Related to Setbacks for Side\nStreet Property Lines on Corner Parcels within the North Park Street, Gateway Zoning\nDistrict. The proposed amendments are categorically exempt from the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor\nAlterations to Land Use Limitations. Introduced.\nStated the Downtown Alameda Business Association (DABA) supports the project;\nurged approval of the zoning amendment: Robb Ratto, DABA.\nStated that he and the architect are present to answer questions: Marcel Sengul,\nApplicant.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved the amendment [introduction of the ordinance], with\ninsertion in Section 1 of \" for outdoor seating or other public spaces\" to read \" other\nnon-automotive public spaces.\"\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the next sentence clarifies that the space is non-\nautomotive.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the wording does not exclude parking spaces; the wording\ncould be interpreted to allow a parking space.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the amendment is good.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there is no harm in adding the amendment.\nMayor Spencer stated the amendment is added clarification.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the project will make the gateway into Alameda a great\nentry.\nVice Mayor Matarrese restated his motion to approve the amendment [introduction of\nthe ordinance] with the insertion of \" other non-automotive public spaces.\"\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 20, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-07-19", "page": 22, "text": "with setting an amount to cover the interim period and bringing the\nauthority to hire outside counsel to the City Council, without\nlimitation on dollar amounts.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated there should not be a special meeting for\n$3,000 if the City Attorney needs to hire a transactional attorney\nor if there is a tax question that comes up through the Finance\nDepartment.\nMayor Johnson concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that if a dollar amount were not set, the\nCouncil would be involved in a $3,000 decision to hire a tax\nattorney.\nMayor Johnson stated Council could discuss a dollar limit; if the\nCouncil had known about hiring Linda Tripoli to give an opinion on\nvehicle allowance, Council might have paid more attention to the\nissue; the Council should know who is working for the City, what\npeople are being hired to do and why; that she does not have\nproblem with a limit if the issue is minor.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that, if the Council wants to know who is\nbeing hired, the question comes down to timing; inquired how\nquickly the Council should be informed after legal counsel is\nhired; stated there is a proposal for quarterly financial reports\non the cost of outside counsel, including who the outside counsel\nis for each matter.\nMayor Johnson stated in a lot of cases the Council could give\napproval before outside counsel is hired; a lot of the hiring does\nnot need to be immediate; regular Council meetings are twice a\nmonth; the City Attorney can hire someone and bring the matter to\nCouncil for approval at the next meeting in cases when there is not\ntime; the Council does not want to have special meetings all the\ntime; that she does not like the system that is in place now; the\nCharter states that the Council consents to the hiring of outside\ncounsel; Council is currently consenting to hiring over $800,000\nworth of outside counsel through a line item budget allocation; the\nCouncil needs to exercise more oversight Council can discuss the\nlevel of consent that should be set; it is a change from what has\nbeen done the past 16 years; the Council needs to exercise more\noversight than in the past.\nVice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Mayor Johnson; stated that she is\nunclear of how the Mayor proposes to do so; the City Attorney\nprovided a proposal inquired whether the proposal could be\nreviewed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nJuly 19, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2010-05-24", "page": 8, "text": "with respect to the street grid pattern and traffic impacts during peak travel times. She finds\nthat the public access to the waterfront is too small and insufficient and, in essence, seems\nto privatize this public space. She recommended that the applicant consider other locations\nfor the multi-family structure.\nBoard Member Zuppan supports the redevelopment of the blighted site, but is very\nconcerned about the lack of public parking and the sense that this development appears\nclosed-off to Alameda with access to the public park restricted. She favors that Blanding\nAvenue and Elm Street be continued through the development and that there be vehicular\naccess to the waterfront. She supported Board member Cook's recommendation from the\nlast meeting to include opportunities for commercial ventures along the waterfront.\nBoard Member Lynch requested that information be provided on the feasibility analysis so\nthat the Board can properly evaluate the density bonus proposal.\nPresident Ezzy Ashcraft is supportive of the sustainability concepts of this development.\nShe favors a continuation of the existing street grid pattern through this development and\npublic access to the waterfront park along with providing parking for visitors to this park.\nShe is supportive of the need to separate vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian travel paths,\nbut is concerned about having to many street intersections along Clement Avenue.\nFollowing Board member comments, the President noted that a lot of input had been\nprovided by the Public and the Board and emphasized that this information should be given\ncareful consideration when the final site plan is developed. No additional action was taken\nby the Board at this time, but it was noted that this project would need to come back to the\nBoard at a later meeting date for consideration.\n10.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n11.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone.\n12.\nADJOURNMENT: 10:45pm\nPlanning Board\nPage 8 of 8\nApproved Meeting Minutes 5/24/2010", "path": "PlanningBoard/2010-05-24.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-10-02", "page": 4, "text": "with motion detectors.\nThe City Engineer responded in the affirmative; stated said system\nis more expensive; the system would have been ordered if current\nfacts were known.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether in-pavement lights would be\nplaced between Santa Clara Avenue and Central Avenue.\nMayor Johnson responded that said lights have already been\ninstalled.\nMichael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that he would like to see in-\npavement lights at the intersection of Main Street and Ralph\nAppezzato Parkway.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that hopefully money\nwill be available to install embedded lights.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(07-483 - ) Recommendation to adopt the City of Alameda Ferry Short\nRange Transit Plan, Fiscal Year 2008/2018 and receive an update on\nthe Water Emergency Transportation Authority Legislation.\nThe Ferry Services Manager and Public Works Director gave a brief\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested background on the Golden Gate\nBridge Transit District; inquired how many ferries are run by the\nDistrict.\nThe Ferry Services Manager responded that the Golden Gate Bridge\nTransit District is the largest ferry service on the Bay and\ncarries approximately two million passengers per year; stated the\nDistrict has five boats.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that the legislation was to ensure a\ncoordinated emergency response effort; inquired why the largest\nprovider [Golden Gate Bridge Transit District] is excluded.\nThe Public Works Director responded that he does not have an answer\ntonight, but that he will look into the matter.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nOctober 2, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2014-07-14", "page": 2, "text": "with minimum 4' fence.\nPresident Burton opened the public comment.\nMr. Richard Neveln, resident, commented that the plan should be expanded to include an\narea for model aviation, board games and a concession stand with bait for fishing. Also,\nthe park should connect to a bus stop with a shelter.\nMs. Lucy Gigli, President Bike - Walk Alameda, mentioned an email she sent prior to the\nmeeting, and thanked staff for the extra bike racks in the design. She asked for a couple\nminor changes to the bike parking design to maximize use. She stated that Thompson\nField does not have any bike parking.\nPresident Burton closed public comment.\nBoard member Alvarez-Morroni commented that there are game tables on the drawing and\nshe appreciates the comments regarding bike parking.\nBoard member Tang asked about the cost for bike racks and questioned if more can be\nadded later if necessary. He asked about the maintenance for the synthetic turf and could\nthe field be used for different sports such as bocce ball for the elderly.\nMs. Wooldridge commented that the racks are not that costly but they need to be bolted to\na hard surface, and should be placed at prime entry points to the park. She stated the\nfield maintenance is comparable to that at other fields and bocce ball can be incorporated\nif wanted.\nBoard member Knox White commented on the future look of the plan, and the road leading\ninto the park being small in contrast. He would like to see the main entry be Mitchell\nAvenue when it is constructed. He appreciates the bike parking additions.\nMr. Thomas commented that Mosley Avenue curves, but referred to Mitchell Avenue, once\nconstructed, as the major road connecting to 5th Street. Eventually Mosley Avenue will be\na neighborhood street. The design can be amended as the development around the park\nis completed.\nBoard member Knox White commented on the need for bike riders to see their bikes once\nthey enter the park and moving some of the bike parking could be a great change. He\ncommended Ms. Wooldridge for securing the grant for the project.\nVice President Henneberry commented on this being a good design and having two park\nplans come before the board in two meetings is a great thing.\nPresident Burton stated he agrees with the Bike Walk Alameda comments for defining bike\nparking locations and he agrees with the Mitchell Avenue design ideas. He likes the idea of\na concession stand.\nApproved Regular Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 4\nJuly 14, 2014", "path": "PlanningBoard/2014-07-14.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2005-09-28", "page": 3, "text": "with making the interior circulation areas that of a neighborhood scale,\nnot a large shopping center. He likened it to walking through a gallery\nor museum, not a plaza or square.\nMr. Savinar concludes the presentation by explaining that his client is\none of the most aggressive print collectors in the United States. The\nclient wants the collection at South Shore to be family-oriented and\nappealing to the masses, but not watered down; however, he has\nrejected some pieces with \"edge.' C Huston reiterated her desire for\noriginality in the pieces. She went on to state that opportunities for\ninnovation can be used in subtle ways through material and scale for\ninstance.\nAfter the presentation, the PAC discusses South Shore further. A2CM\nJohnson stated that the $150,000 does not all go towards the public art\npiece. After the administrative and consultant fees, approximately\n$97,500 will be left for actual pieces. Mr. Savinar should consider that\ntransportation and recognition plaques are included in the amount.\nCM Rosenberg stated that the Laursen work would most likely have a\npositive outcome after PAC review. CM Wolfe expressed his desire to\nsee how the Laursen panels would be placed throughout the center.\nB. Update on Library Project - (Oral Report)\nSecretary Bailey stated that the PAC received documents in their July\nAgenda Packets that gave further background information on the\nongoing library project. This includes a memo sent to the Mayor and\nCity Council by Susan Hardie, retired Library Director. It explained the\nbackground of the Public Art process, including the approval process\ncarried out by the PAAC on July 21, 2004.\nSecretary Bailey added that funding for Masayuki Nagase's eight\nmedallions, Cadence of the Water, has been secured. The medallions\nhave the highest priority, because they are required to be installed\nduring construction. She also shared that an article had been featured\nin the Alameda Journal on Tuesday, July 26. It pictured Masayuki\ncarving giant stone, similar to that which will be used for the library.\nC. Update on Bay Ship and Yacht - (Oral Report)\nSecretary Bailey explained that the Planning & Building Department\nreceived a letter from Cris Craft, Chief Engineer representing Bay Ship\n& Yacht, on August 5, 2005. He questioned whether the Public Art\nOrdinance applied to their project, since they are the tenants and their\nPAC Meeting\n3\nMinutes\nSeptember 28, 2005", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2005-09-28.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-08", "page": 10, "text": "with infrastructure.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding debt, the City Manager stated\nthe other way has not worked for sixteen years; the underlying property issues are more\nimportant than entitlement risk, but cannot be impacted; entitlement risk is the thing the\nCity can deal with.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she agrees entitlement risk is the one thing the City can\ncontrol, however, she disagrees that the previous projects failed because of entitlement\nrisk; the projects failed in large part because they did not pencil out.\nThe City Manager stated part of the reason the projects did not pencil out is because\nthe City was going through the entitlement process with community interest burdens;\nthe base reuse process Statewide caused people to come up with laundry lists that do\nnot match the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) needs of developers; the City cannot correct\nsaid conflict; the proposed plan is a way to address said conflict in a democratic way.\n*\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 9:03 p.m. and returned at 9:05 p.m.\n*\nExpressed concern about spending money for a project that does not pencil out,\nbringing capital to the project, backbone infrastructure and predevelopment costs, and\nsigning a contract: Karen Bey, Alameda.\n*\nCouncilmember deHaan left the dais and returned at 9:17 p.m.\nThe City Manager noted that the development advisor may do brokerage on the pads,\nbut cannot bid on any of the projects.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the developer would need capital partners, not the City,\nrequested staff to clarify.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the City would have entitlements\nand would engage a developer to do construction; the City would not take on any\ninfrastructure risk.\nCouncilmember Johnson noted the City did infrastructure for Catellus Bayport project,\nbut should not be doing so now; stated staff has done a conservative financial analysis;\nthere are long term tenants with short term leases; the plan is well thought out; Fort Ord\nin Monterey has been done piecemeal and projects have been done in wrong locations.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is conservative; questioned where the City\nwould be if going forward with one pad does not work; stated going forward with multiple\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMay 8, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-15", "page": 4, "text": "with direction that the Interim City Manager find out what is\nsupposed to happen [as required by the ordinance] and return to\nCouncil with an update.\nMayor Johnson stated [ the motion should include] that the Public\nArt Commission should look for a project.\nCouncilmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion with a caveat noting that\nstaff is reviewing all Boards and Commissions; inquired when the\nreview would come forward.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the matter probably would be\naddressed in February.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(\n*09-508) Recommendation to Conduct the Affordable Housing\nOrdinance Annual Review Consistent with Section 27-1 of the Alameda\nMunicipal Code and California Government Code Section 66001 and\nAccept the Annual Report. Accepted.\n(09-509) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and\nAuthorize a Call for Bids for the Webster Street/Wilver \"Willie\"\nStargell Avenue Intersection Project - Landscape and Irrigation\nImprovements, No. P.W. 06-09-18.\nThe City Engineer gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the bid is for landscaping and\nirrigation; inquired whether the project is using bay friendly\nlandscaping that does not require irrigation.\nThe City Engineer responded the Bay Friendly Guidelines were\nfollowed; stated the required number of points was achieved;\nirrigation is used to establish plants; all plants are bay\nfriendly.\nIn response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry about whether the\nirrigation would be temporary, the City Engineer stated the\nirrigation remains in the event plants die.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nDecember 15, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 23, "text": "with cuts.\nMayor Johnson concurred.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated there is not a need to go through each\ndepartment, especially departments not losing actual employees.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is interested in creating a\nprofile for Alameda's budget the International City Management\nAssociation (ICMA) has certain ratios on the number of police\nofficers and fire fighters; inquired whether ratios were available\nfor the public works, planning and recreation departments; stated\nratios might indicate additional funding is needed for\na\ndepartment; a standard other than ICMA could be used; that he would\nlike to know where the City should be.\nThe Acting City Manager inquired whether louncilmember Daysog was\nrequesting information on ideal staffing levels.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; noted Alameda\nCounty uses said standards to produce its budget.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda County uses ICMA standards,\nto which Councilmember Daysog responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated standards are useful for touching\nbase, but historic review of staffing and service levels is very\nvaluable because it is reality; the City has certain realities,\nsuch as being an island which has advantages and disadvantages that\nmust be taken into account.\nCouncilmember Daysog concurred that historic data is good, too;\nstated ICMA standards probably correlate to what staff is\nrequesting.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated in addition to presenting information\nfrom departments losing a staff person, departments with a large\nnumber of vacant positions that interface with the public, such as\npublic safety, should also be discussed at the next Council meeting\nso the public would be aware of changes in service.\nThe Acting City Manager noted there would be reductions in force in\nDevelopment Services, which is funded through sources other than\nthe General Fund.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there would be a reduction in\npositions at Alameda Power and Telecom, to which the Acting City\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-05-02", "page": 6, "text": "with buttons supporting Proposition 81; stated she attended the\nAnnual California Library Association and School Library\nAssociation Legislative Day in Sacramento; Proposition 81 is a $600\nmillion Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act Proposition\n81 is not polling well; the City could benefit from State bond\nfunds to renovate the two branch libraries or build another branch\nlibrary ; noted over 3 million native English speaking Californians\nare functionally illiterate; urged adoption of the Resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what underlying revenue stream would\npay for the Bond.\nMs. Ezzy Ashcraft responded the indebtedness is taken on by the\nState; stated Proposition 81 has the same structure as Proposition\n14.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the New Main Library would not be\npossible without Proposition 14; support is needed for Proposition\n81; the West End has an old branch library and Bay Farm Island has\nan undersized branch library.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(06-235) Resolution No. 13950, \"Supporting a \"Buy Alameda\"\nPhilosophy. \" Adopted.\nThe Acting Assistant to the City Manager provided a brief\npresentation.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the centralization for\npurchasing goods and supplies is being handled by the Finance\nDepartment, to which the Acting Assistant to the City Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether hiring a buyer was\nanticipated.\nThe City Manager responded expanding the responsibilities of\nexisting staff is being considered.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired how the 5% preference would work on a\n$10,000 purchase.\nThe Finance Director responded written proposals would be requested\non large purchases; a local vendor would have the advantage if they\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMay 2, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf"}