pages
643 rows where page = 10
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: body, date, text
date (date) 640 ✖
- 2012-06-06 2
- 2019-12-18 2
- 2005-01-04 1
- 2005-01-10 1
- 2005-01-13 1
- 2005-01-18 1
- 2005-01-24 1
- 2005-01-31 1
- 2005-02-01 1
- 2005-02-14 1
- 2005-02-15 1
- 2005-02-28 1
- 2005-03-01 1
- 2005-03-14 1
- 2005-03-15 1
- 2005-03-28 1
- 2005-04-05 1
- 2005-04-11 1
- 2005-04-19 1
- 2005-04-25 1
- 2005-05-03 1
- 2005-05-09 1
- 2005-05-17 1
- 2005-05-23 1
- 2005-06-07 1
- 2005-06-09 1
- 2005-06-13 1
- 2005-06-21 1
- 2005-06-27 1
- 2005-07-19 1
- 2005-08-02 1
- 2005-08-04 1
- 2005-08-08 1
- 2005-08-16 1
- 2005-08-22 1
- 2005-09-06 1
- 2005-09-12 1
- 2005-09-20 1
- 2005-09-29 1
- 2005-10-10 1
- 2005-10-18 1
- 2005-10-24 1
- 2005-11-01 1
- 2005-11-14 1
- 2005-11-15 1
- 2005-12-06 1
- 2005-12-20 1
- 2006-01-03 1
- 2006-01-09 1
- 2006-02-07 1
- 2006-02-13 1
- 2006-02-21 1
- 2006-02-27 1
- 2006-03-07 1
- 2006-03-21 1
- 2006-04-04 1
- 2006-04-10 1
- 2006-04-18 1
- 2006-04-24 1
- 2006-05-02 1
- 2006-05-08 1
- 2006-05-16 1
- 2006-05-22 1
- 2006-06-06 1
- 2006-06-07 1
- 2006-06-20 1
- 2006-07-05 1
- 2006-07-10 1
- 2006-07-18 1
- 2006-07-24 1
- 2006-07-26 1
- 2006-09-05 1
- 2006-09-19 1
- 2006-09-25 1
- 2006-09-27 1
- 2006-10-03 1
- 2006-10-09 1
- 2006-10-17 1
- 2006-10-23 1
- 2006-10-25 1
- 2006-11-13 1
- 2006-11-21 1
- 2006-12-05 1
- 2006-12-11 1
- 2006-12-13 1
- 2007-01-02 1
- 2007-01-08 1
- 2007-01-16 1
- 2007-01-31 1
- 2007-02-06 1
- 2007-02-12 1
- 2007-02-20 1
- 2007-02-26 1
- 2007-03-06 1
- 2007-03-12 1
- 2007-03-20 1
- 2007-03-26 1
- 2007-03-28 1
- 2007-04-03 1
- 2007-04-17 1
- 2007-04-18 1
- 2007-04-23 1
- 2007-04-25 1
- 2007-05-01 1
- 2007-05-14 1
- 2007-05-15 1
- 2007-05-23 1
- 2007-05-29 1
- 2007-06-05 1
- 2007-06-11 1
- 2007-06-19 1
- 2007-06-25 1
- 2007-07-03 1
- 2007-07-09 1
- 2007-07-17 1
- 2007-07-25 1
- 2007-08-07 1
- 2007-08-21 1
- 2007-08-27 1
- 2007-09-04 1
- 2007-09-11 1
- 2007-09-18 1
- 2007-09-24 1
- 2007-10-02 1
- 2007-10-08 1
- 2007-10-16 1
- 2007-10-22 1
- 2007-10-24 1
- 2007-11-06 1
- 2007-11-13 1
- 2007-11-20 1
- 2007-11-26 1
- 2007-12-04 1
- 2007-12-06 1
- 2007-12-10 1
- 2007-12-18 1
- 2008-01-02 1
- 2008-01-14 1
- 2008-01-15 1
- 2008-01-28 1
- 2008-02-05 1
- 2008-02-11 1
- 2008-02-19 1
- 2008-02-25 1
- 2008-02-27 1
- 2008-03-04 1
- 2008-03-18 1
- 2008-04-01 1
- 2008-04-15 1
- 2008-04-23 1
- 2008-04-28 1
- 2008-05-06 1
- 2008-05-12 1
- 2008-05-20 1
- 2008-05-28 1
- 2008-06-03 1
- 2008-06-17 1
- 2008-06-23 1
- 2008-06-25 1
- 2008-07-01 1
- 2008-07-14 1
- 2008-07-15 1
- 2008-07-23 1
- 2008-08-05 1
- 2008-08-11 1
- 2008-08-19 1
- 2008-09-02 1
- 2008-09-16 1
- 2008-09-22 1
- 2008-10-07 1
- 2008-10-21 1
- 2008-11-06 1
- 2008-11-18 1
- 2008-11-24 1
- 2008-12-02 1
- 2008-12-08 1
- 2008-12-10 1
- 2008-12-16 1
- 2009-01-06 1
- 2009-01-20 1
- 2009-01-28 1
- 2009-02-03 1
- 2009-02-07 1
- 2009-02-09 1
- 2009-02-17 1
- 2009-02-25 1
- 2009-03-03 1
- 2009-03-09 1
- 2009-03-17 1
- 2009-03-23 1
- 2009-04-07 1
- 2009-04-21 1
- 2009-04-22 1
- 2009-04-27 1
- 2009-05-05 1
- 2009-05-19 1
- 2009-05-27 1
- 2009-06-02 1
- 2009-06-16 1
- 2009-07-07 1
- 2009-07-21 1
- 2009-08-03 1
- 2009-08-24 1
- 2009-09-01 1
- 2009-09-15 1
- 2009-10-06 1
- 2009-10-20 1
- 2009-11-03 1
- 2009-11-17 1
- 2009-12-01 1
- 2009-12-02 1
- 2009-12-15 1
- 2010-01-05 1
- 2010-01-06 1
- 2010-01-26 1
- 2010-02-16 1
- 2010-03-16 1
- 2010-04-06 1
- 2010-04-20 1
- 2010-05-04 1
- 2010-05-18 1
- 2010-06-01 1
- 2010-06-15 1
- 2010-06-24 1
- 2010-07-06 1
- 2010-07-07 1
- 2010-07-20 1
- 2010-07-27 1
- 2010-09-07 1
- 2010-09-21 1
- 2010-09-25 1
- 2010-10-05 1
- 2010-10-19 1
- 2010-11-03 1
- 2010-11-16 1
- 2010-12-07 1
- 2011-01-04 1
- 2011-01-18 1
- 2011-01-25 1
- 2011-02-01 1
- 2011-02-15 1
- 2011-02-23 1
- 2011-03-01 1
- 2011-03-14 1
- 2011-03-15 1
- 2011-03-29 1
- 2011-04-05 1
- 2011-04-12 1
- 2011-05-03 1
- 2011-05-17 1
- 2011-06-07 1
- 2011-06-21 1
- 2011-06-28 1
- 2011-07-05 1
- 2011-07-12 1
- 2011-07-19 1
- 2011-09-06 1
- 2011-09-20 1
- 2011-10-10 1
- 2011-10-18 1
- 2011-11-01 1
- 2011-11-15 1
- 2011-11-28 1
- 2011-12-12 1
- 2011-12-20 1
- 2012-01-09 1
- 2012-01-25 1
- 2012-02-07 1
- 2012-02-13 1
- 2012-02-21 1
- 2012-02-27 1
- 2012-03-06 1
- 2012-03-07 1
- 2012-03-12 1
- 2012-03-20 1
- 2012-03-28 1
- 2012-04-03 1
- 2012-04-17 1
- 2012-04-25 1
- 2012-05-01 1
- 2012-05-08 1
- 2012-05-14 1
- 2012-05-15 1
- 2012-05-30 1
- 2012-06-11 1
- 2012-06-19 1
- 2012-06-27 1
- 2012-07-03 1
- 2012-07-17 1
- 2012-07-23 1
- 2012-07-24 1
- 2012-07-25 1
- 2012-08-27 1
- 2012-09-26 1
- 2012-10-02 1
- 2012-10-10 1
- 2012-10-16 1
- 2012-11-07 1
- 2012-11-28 1
- 2012-12-10 1
- 2013-01-23 1
- 2013-02-05 1
- 2013-02-19 1
- 2013-03-05 1
- 2013-04-02 1
- 2013-04-16 1
- 2013-05-07 1
- 2013-05-13 1
- 2013-05-21 1
- 2013-06-18 1
- 2013-06-26 1
- 2013-07-22 1
- 2013-07-23 1
- 2013-07-24 1
- 2013-09-17 1
- 2013-09-25 1
- 2013-09-30 1
- 2013-10-01 1
- 2013-10-15 1
- 2013-10-23 1
- 2013-11-05 1
- 2013-11-19 1
- 2013-12-03 1
- 2013-12-17 1
- 2014-01-09 1
- 2014-02-04 1
- 2014-03-18 1
- 2014-03-26 1
- 2014-04-15 1
- 2014-04-28 1
- 2014-05-06 1
- 2014-05-20 1
- 2014-06-03 1
- 2014-06-17 1
- 2014-07-01 1
- 2014-07-02 1
- 2014-07-15 1
- 2014-07-29 1
- 2014-07-30 1
- 2014-09-02 1
- 2014-09-16 1
- 2014-10-21 1
- 2014-10-27 1
- 2014-11-18 1
- 2014-12-02 1
- 2014-12-16 1
- 2015-01-06 1
- 2015-01-20 1
- 2015-01-21 1
- 2015-01-28 1
- 2015-02-02 1
- 2015-02-03 1
- 2015-02-17 1
- 2015-02-25 1
- 2015-03-03 1
- 2015-03-10 1
- 2015-03-17 1
- 2015-03-25 1
- 2015-03-30 1
- 2015-04-01 1
- 2015-04-07 1
- 2015-04-13 1
- 2015-04-21 1
- 2015-04-29 1
- 2015-05-05 1
- 2015-05-19 1
- 2015-05-27 1
- 2015-06-02 1
- 2015-06-11 1
- 2015-06-16 1
- 2015-07-07 1
- 2015-07-13 1
- 2015-07-21 1
- 2015-07-22 1
- 2015-09-01 1
- 2015-09-15 1
- 2015-10-06 1
- 2015-10-20 1
- 2015-11-03 1
- 2015-11-04 1
- 2015-11-18 1
- 2015-12-01 1
- 2015-12-15 1
- 2016-01-05 1
- 2016-01-27 1
- 2016-02-01 1
- 2016-02-02 1
- 2016-02-16 1
- 2016-02-24 1
- 2016-02-29 1
- 2016-03-01 1
- 2016-03-15 1
- 2016-03-23 1
- 2016-04-05 1
- 2016-04-19 1
- 2016-05-03 1
- 2016-05-09 1
- 2016-05-17 1
- 2016-05-25 1
- 2016-06-07 1
- 2016-06-08 1
- 2016-06-21 1
- 2016-06-27 1
- 2016-07-05 1
- 2016-07-19 1
- 2016-07-25 1
- 2016-09-06 1
- 2016-09-20 1
- 2016-10-04 1
- 2016-10-10 1
- 2016-10-12 1
- 2016-10-18 1
- 2016-11-01 1
- 2016-11-15 1
- 2016-12-06 1
- 2016-12-12 1
- 2016-12-14 1
- 2016-12-20 1
- 2017-01-03 1
- 2017-01-17 1
- 2017-01-23 1
- 2017-02-07 1
- 2017-02-08 1
- 2017-02-13 1
- 2017-02-17 1
- 2017-02-21 1
- 2017-02-23 1
- 2017-02-27 1
- 2017-03-06 1
- 2017-03-07 1
- 2017-03-21 1
- 2017-03-22 1
- 2017-04-04 1
- 2017-04-07 1
- 2017-04-12 1
- 2017-04-18 1
- 2017-05-01 1
- 2017-05-02 1
- 2017-05-08 1
- 2017-05-16 1
- 2017-06-06 1
- 2017-06-12 1
- 2017-06-14 1
- 2017-06-20 1
- 2017-07-05 1
- 2017-07-17 1
- 2017-07-18 1
- 2017-07-25 1
- 2017-09-05 1
- 2017-09-19 1
- 2017-10-03 1
- 2017-10-11 1
- 2017-10-17 1
- 2017-10-21 1
- 2017-11-07 1
- 2017-11-13 1
- 2017-11-21 1
- 2017-12-05 1
- 2017-12-13 1
- 2017-12-14 1
- 2017-12-19 1
- 2018-01-02 1
- 2018-01-16 1
- 2018-02-05 1
- 2018-02-06 1
- 2018-02-14 1
- 2018-02-15 1
- 2018-02-20 1
- 2018-03-05 1
- 2018-03-06 1
- 2018-03-20 1
- 2018-04-03 1
- 2018-04-11 1
- 2018-04-12 1
- 2018-04-17 1
- 2018-05-01 1
- 2018-05-09 1
- 2018-05-15 1
- 2018-06-05 1
- 2018-06-19 1
- 2018-07-10 1
- 2018-07-11 1
- 2018-07-24 1
- 2018-09-04 1
- 2018-09-12 1
- 2018-09-18 1
- 2018-10-02 1
- 2018-10-08 1
- 2018-10-16 1
- 2018-11-07 1
- 2018-11-27 1
- 2018-11-28 1
- 2018-12-04 1
- 2018-12-18 1
- 2019-01-02 1
- 2019-01-15 1
- 2019-01-16 1
- 2019-01-23 1
- 2019-01-29 1
- 2019-02-05 1
- 2019-02-14 1
- 2019-02-19 1
- 2019-02-25 1
- 2019-03-05 1
- 2019-03-11 1
- 2019-03-13 1
- 2019-03-16 1
- 2019-03-19 1
- 2019-04-02 1
- 2019-04-16 1
- 2019-05-07 1
- 2019-05-21 1
- 2019-05-22 1
- 2019-05-28 1
- 2019-06-04 1
- 2019-06-18 1
- 2019-07-02 1
- 2019-07-08 1
- 2019-07-16 1
- 2019-07-22 1
- 2019-09-03 1
- 2019-09-09 1
- 2019-09-12 1
- 2019-09-17 1
- 2019-09-25 1
- 2019-10-01 1
- 2019-10-08 1
- 2019-10-15 1
- 2019-11-05 1
- 2019-11-19 1
- 2019-12-03 1
- 2019-12-12 1
- 2019-12-17 1
- 2020-01-07 1
- 2020-01-21 1
- 2020-02-04 1
- 2020-02-18 1
- 2020-02-26 1
- 2020-03-03 1
- 2020-03-17 1
- 2020-04-07 1
- 2020-04-21 1
- 2020-04-22 1
- 2020-05-05 1
- 2020-05-11 1
- 2020-05-19 1
- 2020-05-20 1
- 2020-06-02 1
- 2020-06-16 1
- 2020-06-17 1
- 2020-06-24 1
- 2020-06-29 1
- 2020-07-07 1
- 2020-07-14 1
- 2020-07-21 1
- 2020-07-22 1
- 2020-07-25 1
- 2020-08-17 1
- 2020-09-01 1
- 2020-09-15 1
- 2020-09-23 1
- 2020-10-06 1
- 2020-10-20 1
- 2020-11-04 1
- 2020-11-12 1
- 2020-11-16 1
- 2020-11-17 1
- 2020-11-23 1
- 2020-12-01 1
- 2021-01-05 1
- 2021-01-14 1
- 2021-01-19 1
- 2021-01-27 1
- 2021-02-01 1
- 2021-02-02 1
- 2021-02-16 1
- 2021-02-22 1
- 2021-03-01 1
- 2021-03-02 1
- 2021-03-04 1
- 2021-03-08 1
- 2021-03-11 1
- 2021-03-16 1
- 2021-03-22 1
- 2021-03-24 1
- 2021-03-30 1
- 2021-04-05 1
- 2021-04-06 1
- 2021-04-20 1
- 2021-04-26 1
- 2021-05-03 1
- 2021-05-04 1
- 2021-05-06 1
- 2021-05-08 1
- 2021-05-10 1
- 2021-05-18 1
- 2021-05-24 1
- 2021-05-26 1
- 2021-06-01 1
- 2021-06-14 1
- 2021-06-15 1
- 2021-06-28 1
- 2021-07-06 1
- 2021-07-12 1
- 2021-07-19 1
- 2021-07-20 1
- 2021-07-26 1
- 2021-07-28 1
- 2021-09-07 1
- 2021-09-20 1
- 2021-09-21 1
- 2021-09-22 1
- 2021-09-27 1
- 2021-10-04 1
- 2021-10-05 1
- 2021-10-19 1
- 2021-10-27 1
- 2021-11-01 1
- 2021-11-02 1
- 2021-11-16 1
- 2021-11-30 1
- 2021-12-06 1
- 2021-12-07 1
- 2021-12-13 1
- 2021-12-21 1
- 2022-01-04 1
- 2022-01-18 1
- 2022-02-01 1
- 2022-02-14 1
- 2022-02-15 1
- 2022-03-01 1
- 2022-03-10 1
- 2022-03-15 1
- 2022-04-05 1
- 2022-04-12 1
- 2022-04-19 1
- 2022-05-03 1
- 2022-05-10 1
- 2022-05-17 1
- 2022-06-07 1
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-04 | 10 | tenants. Speakers John Sullivan, San Leandro, Mark Harney, Fifteen Asset Management Group; Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners' Association; Lorraine Lilley, Harbor Island Tenant Association; Eve Bach, Arc Ecology Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope; Steve Edrington, Renal Housing Association; Delores Wells, Harbor Island Tenant Association (submitted letter) ; Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant Association; Mary Green-Parks, Alameda; Gen Fujioka, Asian Law Caucus; Reginald James, Alameda; Michael Yoshii, Alamedal; and Bill Smith, Alameda. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are a total of 17 units currently occupied, to which Mr. Harney responded there are 17 units that are occupied by tenants with leases; there are 9 units occupied by tenants who have stopped paying rent. Mayor Johnson inquired whether relocation assistance would still be available to the remaining tenants with leases, to which Mr. Harney responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how many Harbor Island Apartment tenants remained in Alameda, to which Mr. Harney responded that he was not certain; not all tenants provided forwarding information. Councilmember deHaan requested information on the number of Section 8 tenants that remained in Alameda. Councilmember Matarrese stated that Council wants to know what the immediate issues are in dealing with individuals who are still occupying units at the Harbor Island Apartments and what assistance can be provided; inquired whether there are housing assistance opportunities for the remaining tenants through Community Development programs or Sentinel Fair Housing. The Community Development Manager responded that the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program contracts with Sentinel Fair Housing and the Red Cross; Sentinel Fair Housing has been involved with a number of the tenants; CDBG funds are also being used to produce new affordable housing units through the Substantial Rehabilitation Program; several of the units would be available to applicants who previously resided at the Harbor Isla… | CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-18 | 10 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 18, 2005 - -6:30 P.M. Acting Mayor Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 6:33 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese, and Acting Mayor Gilmore - 4. Absent : Mayor Johnson - 1. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05-026) - Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators : Human Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organizations : Management and Confidential Employees Association and Police Association Non-Sworn. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Acting Mayor Gilmore announced that the Council gave directions to labor negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 18, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-01-31 | 10 | Mayor Johnson stated that she was concerned with the building at the corner of Central Avenue and Park Street the boards are down, but nothing is being done; inquired whether more controls are needed to ensure that owners remedy buildings within a certain amount of time. Councilmember deHaan requested information on applicable ordinances. The City Manager stated that information would be provided to the Council. (06-048) - Councilmember Matarrese stated that a vehicle inventory was discussed a few months ago; he would like Council to consider establishing a vehicle use resolution or policy so that the City can set an example; the resolution should include how vehicles are purchased, where to purchase alternative fuel vehicles such as natural gas and electric, and City vehicle use to reduce the number of single occupancy trips; requested that the use policy be brought back to the Council for consideration; the purchase of vehicles should follow. (06-049) Councilmember deHaan stated vehicle inventory is important ; he would prefer a separate line item in the budget to indicate the amount spent up front excess vehicles were auctioned over the last three or four months; a number of vehicles are no longer usable; the number of excess vehicles and future needs should be reviewed; uniform vehicle markings are extremely important. The City Manager stated that the replacement criteria were being reviewed; a general policy for alternative fuel would be provided to Council. Councilmember deHaan congratulated Alameda Power and Telecom for using hybrid cars; stated an inventory should be established vehicles should be replaced in a logical manner. (06-050 - ) Mayor Johnson stated that the athletic facilities' use policy should be brought to the Council for adoption by resolution or ordinance; the current policy is not compliant. The City Manager stated that staff is in the process of rewriting the policy. Mayor Johnson stated that she would prefer a formalized Council resolution. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 Januar… | CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-01 | 10 | Gilmore's challenge to have property owners and residents work together and provide suggestions; no one in Alameda has not been offended by the actions of 15 Asset Management Group. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is looking for some type of quantifiable action in going forward; over the last year and a half, Council had knowledge of the crime situation around the complex; Housing Authority reports stated Section 8 units were being decertified because standards were not being met; requested the City Manager to compile indicators such as crime, Code Enforcement complaints, and Housing Authority Section 8 de- certification which would allow Council to set a policy on how to react should there be another large complex that is spinning in the same fashion as the Harbor Island Apartments situation. Mayor Johnson requested an inventory of ordinances that have not been strongly enforced to allow Council to set a policy on enforcement. Councilmember Matarrese requested staff to review the Harbor Island Apartments in relation to Alameda Municipal Code Section 13-11.3 Mayor Johnson requested an inventory of ordinances that apply to Alameda, whether State or local. Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to review how other cities have utilized the State ordinances and whether other cities have been effective. Mayor Johnson stated that it is important for the Council to set a policy utilizing existing ordinances. Councilmember Daysog requested feedback from staff on his draft voluntary relocation assistance. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that going through the process has raised public awarenessi a committee of tenant and landlord representatives should be formed to keep the momentum going and discuss the issues; landlords have been reactionary to tenants' ideas; landlords and tenants should work more cooperatively in developing ideas for preventing the situation from occurring again. Mayor Johnson requested that suggestions on the framework of the committee be brought back to Council at the next City Council meet… | CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-02-15 | 10 | Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is reluctant that the City has to take these stepsi requested that staff monitor service levels: if damage is being done and appropriations are needed, information should be brought to Council before the situation is an emergency the City is starting to nick away at the meat of its services; that he does not differentiate between hard and soft priorities; Council has laid out priorities the park and library services are intangibles that prevent the need for additional police officers in some cases; the situation should be monitored to ensure the City is not putting itself into an unrecoverable hole. Acting Mayor Gilmore complimented staff for the clarity and brevity of the report; commended the Alameda Journal for top coverage of the issue; stated citizens need to be aware; Council is making the best decision given the resources available; the City needs to continue to get out the word because sooner or later the average citizen will be impacted. Councilmember Matarrese requested that the Council consider direction to review terminating the police boat water services; stated upwards of 3,500 berths are occupied by boats that pay property taxes; that he assumes the fire boat is in jeopardy as well; that he would like to have options to help find an alternative funding source, whether it be a surcharge per slip or some other service levy that can be presented to the public; the matter should be brought back to the Council. Councilmember Daysog requested a report on the ARRA $2.5 million budget for public safety; stated that he understands the one-time expenditure will end June 30; in addition to the $1. 4 million hole in the City's budget, there will be a $2.5 million hole in the ARRA budget next year; that he understands the Interim City Manager is reviewing alternatives. The Interim City Manager stated staff is very concerned about the ARRA budget; that he has discussed the matter with the Development Services Director; steps are being taken to pare down the ARRA budget as m… | CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-01 | 10 | unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMEN'T There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement commission March 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-03-15 | 10 | Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the projected overhangs would overwhelm the historic theatre, to which Ms. Krase responded in the affirmative. Kevin Frederick, Alameda, stated that no consideration, thought, or respect has been given to Alameda; noted the proposed design is bizarre. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there have been any designs from the architect, to which the Development Services Director responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether designs were presented at last night's Planning Board meeting, to which the Development Services Director responded the developer had his architect work on some of the concepts to clarify questions. Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated the community is reacting to the mass of the structure; noted overhangs would block the views down the street. Debbie George, Alameda, stated the theatre is positive for Alameda; urged moving forward. Al Wright, Alameda, stated that he was extremely happy to have a theatre in Alameda soon. Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated the public has had ample opportunity to provide input; urged the process not be delayed and adoption of the guidelines. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to take out the word "contemporary" from the guidelines he does not see the need to give that type of general guidance; without the Cineplex, the theatre would rot in place; stated nothing is lost by taking out the word "contemporary. Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; inquired whether omitting the word "contemporary" has any negative impact, to which the Development Services Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Matarrese stated there is ample time to massage the design once the true design is presented; that he can accept the design guidelines. Councilmember deHaan stated that he is the strongest advocate of the theatre; inquired whether the retail spaces would be part of Regular Meeting 10 Alameda City Council March 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-04-05 | 10 | The Project Architect stated that parking has been a concern since the beginning; noted that eliminating the carports has maximized the amount of parking on the site; stated that he cannot guarantee that there will not be an overflow. Councilmember Daysog noted that the Judge made a decision and the redevelopment project must go forward. Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Daysog stated that information has been requested on issues raised. Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of resolution denying the Appeal. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, and Mayor Johnson -5. Noes Vice Mayor Gilmore and Councilmember Matarrese - 2. (05-146) - Ordinance No. 2937, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) ; Amending Subsection 30-3.2 (Combining Districts) i Adding a New Subsection 30-4.22 ( T-Theater Combining District) ; and Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Properties Within the City of Alameda to Include the Theater Combining District. Finally passed. Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of Ordinance. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05 - 147 ) Ordinance No. 2938, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) of Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) by Adding a New Section 30-6 (Sign Regulations) to Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) " Finally passed. Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of Ordinance. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (05-148) Michael McGhee, Alameda, stated that he wants to develop a resource guide of veterans' services available in Alameda; the Housing Authority should refer veterans seeking housing to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 April 5, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-04-19 | 10 | Downtown Vision Plan, the Bicycle Master Plan, etc; staff reports should have a section that reviews basic conformance to the policy documents that have been adopted for non-conformance there should be an explanation of the pros and cons; noted the plans may need to be updated; projects such as the Theatre, Bridgeside Shopping Center and the Base need to check conformances to existing plans. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 8:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 April 19, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-03 | 10 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - - MAY 3, 2005 - - - 7:05 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05-019) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.91 Number of cases: One. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission obtained briefing from staff and Legal Counsel and gave direction. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission May 3, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-17 | 10 | (*05-239) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code to Increase the Composition of the Recreation and Park Commission from Five to Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2-7.2 (Membership; Appointment ; Removal). 2-7.3 (Qualification: Voting of Section 2-7 (City Recreation and Park Commission) Introduced. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (05-240 ) Public Hearing to establish Proposition 4 Limit (Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2005-06; - and (05-241) Resolution No. 13944, "Establishing Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2005-06. Adopted. Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (05-242) Public Hearing to consider collection of Delinquent Business License Fees via the Property Tax Bills. Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing. Huong Anh Silver, SOS Urethane Foam Roofing, stated the company has been closed since 1996 and does not have a contractor license. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Ms. Silver contacted the Finance Department, to which Ms. Silver responded in the affirmative; stated the Finance Department stated paperwork was not adequate and SOS Urethane Foam Roofing has been listed in the telephone book. Sherman Silver, SOS Urethane Foam Roofing, stated that he shut down the roofing company ; that he is keeping his license with the State contractors board until he dies; he removed the sign in his front yard tonight; outlined his medical condition; stated he is not roofing anymore. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council could vote on the rest and hold over SOS Roofing to allow staff to take a closer look, to which staff responded in the affirmative. In response to Mr. Silver's question about review of his materials, Mayor Johnson stated the Finance Director would review everything. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 May 17, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-06-07 | 10 | wall recognition and the plaques, to which the Library Director responded that having both is usual. Councilmember deHaan stated the Council is concerned with positioning too many plaques through various areas of the Library; inquired whether the donor plaque recognition would be replicated on the wall. The Library Director responded that any donor who gives $5,000 or more would be recognized on the donor wall; noted the Library Foundation has begun to schedule meetings with donors. Mayor Johnson stated she likes the idea of the large item and area recognition; inquired whether fund raising efforts would be impacted. The Library Director responded that having recognition for large items and areas might be an incentive. Councilmember Daysog stated that the Council should get clarification on the legal issues of refusing a contribution. The City Attorney stated that any reasonable rules could be imposed; the City cannot say no for the wrong reasons. parameters can be drafted. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he agrees with the concept and framework of the policy; inquired when the policy defining the criteria to refuse a contribution and appropriate recognition would come back to Council, to which the Library Director responded that she would hope the policy could come back at a City Council meeting in July. Councilmember DeHaan stated how the plaque would read is important. Mayor Johnson stated she would like to have a recognition wall only as long as there would be no fundraising impact; suggested looking into what other libraries and public buildings have done. The Library Director stated it was not unusual to place names on shelves. (05-280) Recommendation to accept the Webster District Strategic Plan Report. Councilmember deHaan stated that having a grocery store as a key anchor was not possible; inquired whether parking is being proposed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 June 7, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-06-21 | 10 | ratio. Councilmember Daysog stated that more information is needed on the advertising strategy to properly evaluate the different scenarios. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is concerned with cutting the 7:30 p.m. run; riders are lost and not recovered when services are down. Mayor Johnson inquired when the advertising would start, to which the Acting City Manager responded that some direct mail advertising has already started. The Ferry Services Manager stated a survey was conducted in May inquiring whether commute patterns would remain the same if a 50 cent each way fare increase was implemented and the 7:30 p.m. run was eliminated; 22-23% riders indicated there would be a significant reduction in ferry usage; 50 to 60 riders per day would be needed to make up the loss in a worst case scenario; the survey indicates that the market potential exists in the primary market, which is the Harbor Bay and the Fernside Districts; tests on the secondary market, covering San Leandro and Oakland, are being conducted. The Acting City Manager stated retaining the 7:30 p.m. run is important a three month trial would show whether increased ridership would make up for the $2,500 loss per month. Lorre Zuppan stated that she has not done an analysis of the 7:30 p.m. run; tracking the success of prior campaigns is difficult; if ridership is not increased, keeping the 7:30 p.m. run presents a risk. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 June 21, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-07-19 | 10 | Proponents : David Hart, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Susan Older, Alameda: Peter MacDonald, representing Mark Haskett Blake Brydon, Alameda; Bernard Clark, Alameda; Mark Haskett, Alameda: and Ami Dimusheva, Alameda. Opponent : Former Councilmember Barbara Thomas, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. Mayor Johnson requested staff to respond to the issue of providing notice to C-2 zoning areas [raised by Ms. Thomas] The Supervising Planner stated the C-2 Zoning District permits theaters, including movie theaters, as a permitted use; theaters do not have to go through the use permit process that the proposed text amendment would require for the C-1 district. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the [movie theater ] use is already permitted in the C-2 district, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated speakers were surprised that the matter was before the Council; the normal process is being followed; nothing is being hidden; the process is completely open and public; the public should be aware that the action is not redundant and is the way business is conducted. Mayor Johnson noted the Council had not considered the issue before. Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned that seventeen areas could be affected; hopefully, there are enough safeguards not all [C-1] areas have the same attributes of the [theater] location on Central Avenue; inquired whether there are outstanding code issues at the cinema. The Acting City Manager responded the one [outstanding] issue is the projection booth; stated the Applicant has been working cooperatively with the Building Department; the issue is clearance around the projector. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the initial life safety issues were resolved, to which the Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired when the outstanding [projector] Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 July 19, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-08-02 | 10 | be continued because there was not sufficient information provided yet. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether other legislation was being proposed. Mayor Johnson responded that she thought there was proposed legislation from Senators Feinstein and McCain; stated that all information would be presented when the matter returns to Council. (05-394 - ) Councilmember Matarrese welcomed the new City Manager; stated that he was looking forward to working with the new City Manager to get a lot done. Councilmember Daysog welcomed the new City Manager. Councilmember deHaan welcomed the new City Manager ; noted that tonight's adjournment time is not the norm. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 9:17 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 August 2, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-08-16 | 10 | Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the factor used for the first study has increased. The Development Services Director responded the new trip manual published after parking work was completed has identical numbers on reverse days; the factors used for Saturday are now the factors that apply to Friday peak parking and vice versa; the Saturday position has been improved significantly. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether said information has been provided. The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated that the only manual of record published at the time the work was completed was used for the [first study; using the new trip manual staff decided whether changes needed to be made; the decision was that, with the reverse [of Friday and Saturday peaks], an even worse case situation had been analyzed [in the first study! ]. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 200 spaces would overflow into other areas because the parking structure would not be able to handle all parking needs. The Development Services Director responded said case would only occur at one or two peaks a week; 1750 seats were analyzed; the scope of the assessment for the environmental review was a bigger project because staff did not have the final numbers; the proposed project is smaller. The Development Manager stated that the assumptions in the traffic and parking analysis were conservative, assumed 100% occupancy of the 1750 seats and did not include cross trips the numbers in the parking study are adequate for meeting the parking demand. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the numbers are adequate to support the theater and the new activity on Park Street, to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the parking would support peak times with activities at the Masonic Temple, Kaufman Auditorium, the Elks Lodge, and the high school. The Development Services Director responded that staff did not factor in that every facility in town could have an event on the same nig… | CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-09-06 | 10 | Councilmember Matarrese stated that the "H" designation is for old houses that may have the potential to be historic, but need to be studied more; houses may not be worth further study; a withdrawal process for non-historic houses may be necessary; the project's character issues can be addressed in design review. Councilmember deHaan stated that 500 Central Avenue is a historical structure. The Supervising Planner stated that 500 Central Avenue has an "S" designation. Councilmember deHaan stated that 30% demolition for 500 Central Avenue was unrealistic and should have been at 80%; stated that he has concerns with how tonight's decision would impact the two other outstanding projects. The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that tonight's decision would only affect 500 Central Avenue; the other property was not a listed building; there is another set of criteria for ore-1942 houses; there was a whole different set of facts regarding 500 Central Avenue; the owner was aware of what he was doing. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the owner's awareness was a distinction that could be used. The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that he thought so; the owner tore down a house on the same property last year without permits. Mayor Johnson stated not setting precedents is important; inquired whether the Appellant would have been successful in removing the property from the historical list at either the HAB or Council level. The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that staff believes that the Appellant would have been granted a certificate of approval for demolition if sought prior to demolition; the house has been significantly remodeled in the past 100 years; the house is very similar to a building that received a certificate of approval for demolition from the HAB; the Appellant was denied after the fact. Mayor Johnson stated that contributing factors are part of the ordinance. The City Manager stated that the ordinance needs to be reviewed in terms of options and penalties each project w… | CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-09-20 | 10 | Minority Report tonight and has requested to speak; some Task Force members wanted to present recommendations that are not part of the report; there are three recommendations that could be summarized by Mr. Yoshi. Mr. Yoshi presented the Minority Report. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the dust should not gather on the work of the Task Force; he appreciates everyone's work; a meeting with Kennedy Wilson is a good idea to ascertain intentions and to work towards a goal of restoring the fabric of the community; the Harbor Island Apartments are unique because of the size; the thrust of preventing mass eviction has the most impact on said complex; the advantages or disadvantages of controlling the management by placing the property in a redevelopment area should be reviewed; he supports going after code enforcement, fair housing laws, and tenant-landlord laws; federal laws on fair housing and inti-discrimination need to be enforced; the City needs to send a message that there will be maximum enforcement of the laws; he is disappointed with Legal Aid and Sentinel Fair Housing for not stepping up to help the City advocate for the tenants; Legal Aid sent lawyers to a City Council meeting advising there was no money to help people file claims against the Fifteen Group; he would like more time to review the Minority Report; the affordable housing goal and the relationship of condominium presence or absence is peripheral and at odds with the notion of preventing further mass evictions; reviewing an alternate condominium conversion ordinance is not appropriate at this time reviewing the possibility of affordable housing for home ownership is in the back drop of reviewing what eventually will be at Alameda Point; he would not want to play into any intention that Kennedy Wilson might have to convert the units into condominiums; the City and Task Force should examine the matter; a combination of affordable ownership housing and rental housing within the complex might be possible; the matter would require a very detailed an… | CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-10-18 | 10 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 18, 2005- -6:55 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call - Present : ouncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (05-496CC/05-046CIC ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case: Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda V. City of Alameda, et al. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the louncil/Commission obtained briefing and gave direction to the City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) is choosing to assume defense of the litigation since the CIC has the most invested in this project; the CIC desires to retain control of the defense. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission October 18, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-11-01 | 10 | sixth story roof parking was always in place. Councilmember deHaan stated the setbacks were done well; the cost per square foot increases with higher levels; inquired whether the soil conditions have been reviewed. The Development Services Director responded that the site has sandy soil. The Redevelopment Manager stated that a professional geotechnical consultant prepared a soil report; the loose sand would need to be removed; compacted, new soil would have to be brought in or the grade below could be used to add some additional spaces to make up for the setback. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether exterior architectural treatment would add to the cost. The Development Services Director responded there are some cost savings with the revised design the goal was to have the parking garage structure cost under or at budget; removing the brick was a savings; providing long, side openings would save on ventilation. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a cost estimate for the parking structure. The Development Services Director responded that there was a ballpark estimate from the Architect; the Architect feels the project was close, if not under budget removing ventilation and sprinkling would save money. Councilmember deHaan stated the October 2002 cost estimate for 269 spaces was $5.4 million. The Development Services stated the estimate was the cost per parking space without land acquisition, relocation, and all soft costs for design and engineering; hard construction costs per space was approximately $18,000 to $19,000. Councilmember deHaan stated the report shows a cost of $16,000 per space a few years ago. The Development Services Director stated that San Jose had a 1999 cost estimate for $15,000 per space which ended up costing $34,000 per space by the time the structure was built four years later; costs are difficult to estimate without construction documents. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the cost estimate was $16 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 November 1, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-11-15 | 10 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 15, 2005 - - - 7:27 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:41 p.m. Commissioner deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. CONSENT CALENDAR Following discussion of the ERM-West Agreement [Paragraph no. 05- - 052], Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the consent calendar. . Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. . ] (*05-051) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on November 1, 2005. Approved. (*05-052) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to enter into an agreement with ERM-West, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $194,320 to evaluate PAH contamination on a portion of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center Property. Joan Konrad, Alameda, submitted a letter; stated that she was concerned with the Fleet Industrial Supply Center development ; urged the Council to consider mixed use of the property. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the original testing was considered inadequate. The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Division Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the Navy was willing to perform sampling which was sufficient for the contemplated non-residential reuse. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether precluding any residential use was a conservative approach, to which the Base Reuse and Redevelopment Division Manager responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether additional testing would necessitate mitigation and cleanup for the contemplated residential use. The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Division Manager responded in the affirmative; stated additional sampling would be performed to Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 1 November 15, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 10 | Mayor Johnson stated that she did not want staff to spend a lot of time on the matter. Councilmember Daysog stated that staff should spend as much time as necessary to do a thorough job. Mayor Johnson stated that the starting threshold could be identifying the Henry Gardner Plan. Councilmember Matarrese requested that the City Clerk repeat the motion. The City Clerk stated that Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with direction to: 1) receive an analysis on the scenarios of drawing down below the 25% level of reserves, 2) review the current budget with regard to under budgeted areas that could be redirected, 3) review possible new sources of revenue, 4) provide a report on the process of exploring an adjustment to the transfer tax, and 5) provide an Off-Agenda Report on the Henry Gardner Plan. Councilmember deHaan requested the motion be amended to include reviewing other assessment districts and the establishment of landscaping and lighting districts as other sources of revenue. Councilmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion. Councilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (05-567) Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated a plan is before the Planning Board to expand South Shore; acknowledged the help and responsiveness of Doug Garrison, Dorene Soto and Bruce Knopf ; stated everyone involved was very concerned about receiving a comprehensive, complete report; urged the Council to support the efforts to make informed decisions. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates receiving the feedback: the Planning Department and Development Services Department staff is top notch. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (05-568 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated streaming video is available on- - line; other cities have placed City Council meetings on the web Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-20 | 10 | Councilmember Matarrese stated the data could be used for anything if the data was public information. Mr. Allen stated that some of the work product could be kept confidential ; the final product would be public. Councilmember Matarrese stated the County is a public entity and the data should be public. Mayor Johnson stated the Contract would identify ownership. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other cities have expressed concern regarding ownership. Mr. Allen responded other cities have agreed with the concerns raised by Alameda. The City Attorney noted that the memorandum from the County stated that information collected would be subject to the Public Records Act. Mayor Johnson stated the Authority would be subject to the Public Records Request Act but not the consultants. The City Attorney stated the data should be publicly available. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the data could be provided to the participants. Councilmember Matarrese stated there was concern that a consultant could ask a broad spectrum of questions, gain personal advantage in running a County survey, and use the data for something else; a condition should be that the data be published along with the report. Mayor Johnson stated that some information has been provided on the election; inquired whether the Authority would pay for the election. Mr. Allen responded that the election cost would be paid by the Authority as a straight charge from the fee. Mayor Johnson inquired what would happen if the proposed assessment did not pass, to which Mr. Allen responded the cost would come out of the Authority's budget. Mayor Johnson inquired what was the election cost estimate. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 December 20, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-01-03 | 10 | the family of Dr. Atari; an investigation is being conducted necessary action would be taken upon conclusion of the investigation; inquired when the report would be provided. The City Manager responded up to four weeks. (06-018) Councilmember Matarrese requested concurrence from the Council to provide direction to gather Council policies and have a central repository established for public access. The City Clerk stated that she has Council policies dating back to 1998; pre-1998 policies are indexed by topic and are difficult to find. Mayor Johnson suggested setting up a method for recording and maintenance of Council policies. The City Clerk stated that a method has been established for future policies. (06-019) Councilmember Matarrese stated that Alameda's Marine Corp unit has been called for deployment in Iraq; requested that the Council meeting be adjourned with the City's wishes for a safe return; he is disturbed that fresh troops are being sent out instead of pulling troops back in from the middle east; the Council needs to express support. (06-020) Councilmember Matarrese stated that tonight is the Assistant City Manager's last meeting; the Assistant City Manager is leaving to become the City Manager of Astoria, Oregon; stated he will miss working with the Assistant City Manager. The Assistant City Manager stated that he was leaving with mixed emotions; Alameda has been a great place to work for the last three years. (06-021) Mayor Johnson stated benefit and pay issues have come to her attention from the City Auditor Citywide policies are lacking; she is hesitant to request staff to take on significant projects that are not related to outside projects; pay and benefit policies should be reviewed and formalized; the matter may need to be handled by an outside service money could be allocated if needed; requested that the matter be brought back to Council. Councilmember Daysog stated he would like to review the $250 car allowance for transit users; an alternative should be established for public transit users… | CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-02-07 | 10 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 7, 2006- -5:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:30 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (06-054) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators : Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations : Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees Association. (06-055) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators: Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee : City Attorney. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees Association, the Council obtained briefing and gave instructions to labor negotiators; regarding the City Attorney, the Council discussed the City Attorney's employment Contract. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council February 7, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-02-21 | 10 | support the resolution. Councilmember Daysog stated that he put together an alternate resolution that references his opening statement regarding offering prayers for a speedy and safe return of the troops; read the operative sections of the alternate resolution; stated the two resolutions differ in that his resolution does not reference Congressman Murtha's or Assembly Member Hancock's highly partisan tones. concerns can be conveyed in words that are more carefully and wisely chosen. Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the alternate resolution. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the alternate resolution does not ask or demand anything a request needs to be made to have the National Guard return home and a timetable provided for withdrawal of the rest of the troops the burden increases as the situation continues; he understands looking at history for an appreciation and lessons learned; the Base has not been conveyed because of haggling over the remediation costs; he is willing to strike references to Congressman Murtha and Assembly Member Hancock from the resolution. Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese regarding asking for something in the resolution; stated Council has the purview to call the California National Guard home the California National Guard has been abused and needs to come home for California's safety and security; she is not willing to support a resolution calling for the withdrawal of all troops. Councilmember Matarrese proposed striking out partisan references [in the original resolution]; stated language regarding a timetable meets the intent of what the City needs reaching a consensus on the issue is impractical he thinks the majority of the citizens are in favor of bringing troops home and understand the need; consensus is a strong word; leading with the majority is sometimes necessary instead of driving for consensus. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the majority of the people in attendance are in favor of the resolution; the majority of e-mails and phone calls she received… | CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-03-07 | 10 | matter. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 March 7, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-03-21 | 10 | The Development Services Director continued her presentation. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the 15% contingency for the historic theater and the 9 and a half percent contingency for the parking structure are included in the budget, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting. Proponents (In favor of staff recommendations) : Pauline Kelley, Alameda Kevis Brownson, Alameda (submitted petition) ; Harvey Brook, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) ; Barbara Mooney, Alameda; Lars Hansson, PSBA; Mary Amen, PSBA; Harry Dahlberg, Economic Development Commission; Ed Clark, West Alameda Business Association; Debbie George, Alameda; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Alameda; Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce (read list of 11 names) ; Robb Ratto, PSBA ( submitted comments) ; Walt Jacobs, Alameda Chamber of Commerce; Charles Carlise; Alameda; Norma Payton Henning, Alameda. Opponents (Not in favor of staff recommendations) : Joe Maylor, Alameda (submitted comments) ; Susan Battaglia, Alameda; Deborah Overfield, Alameda; Valerie Ruma, Alameda (submitted comments) ; Ani Dimusheva, Alameda; Scott Brady, Alameda; Nancy Hird, Alameda; Denise Brady, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society Robert Gavrich, Alameda; Michael Kelly, Alameda; Eric Scheuermann, Alameda; Irene Dieter, Alameda Vern Marsh, Alameda Anders Lee, Alameda ( submitted comments) ; David Kirwin, Oakland (submitted comments) i Rosemary McNally, Alameda; Paula Rainey, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Patricia Gannon, Alameda; Kevin Frederick, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the public portion of the meeting. *** Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 9:37 p.m. and reconvened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:43 p.m. *** The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation in response to public comments. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested clarification on the General Plan requirement for a Civic Center spe… | CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-04-04 | 10 | options are available; Alameda does not need a 100-foot tall Target next to the beach; the City should learn a lesson from the Neptune Beach area; urged the Council to think outside the box. (06-183) Ani Dimusheva, Alameda, inquired whether the new appeal fee policy would encourage frivolous denials on behalf of the Planning Board; stated a bill was forwarded to a collection agency before any explanation was given; the Planning Director claimed that the fees were justified because a form was signed she never signed the form. Mayor Johnson stated the Council discussed the matter in Closed Session; direction was given to the City Manager and Planning Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 April 4, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-04-18 | 10 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- - - -APRIL 18, 2006- -5:31 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Absent : Commissioner Gilmore - 1. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (06-011) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property: 2319 Central Avenue, Barceluna Café; Negotiating parties : Community Improvement Commission and Charles Carlise; Under negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission obtained briefing from real property negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission April 18, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-05-02 | 10 | boats are included in the list, the ferry boats are not; he would investigate the Trident ships. Councilmember Matarrese stated Bay Crossings had an article on the debate of the ability to construct a solar ferry; proposed additional language to the Resolution and rewording of Point D to address order of choices; stated he would rather pay Alameda Power and Telecom for clean fuel than pay the oil companies. Mayor Johnson stated that she liked the terms of the Resolution electric vehicles make sense for making trips back and forth from the Base to City Hall; it is important to identify vehicle use to see what type of vehicle is most efficient; other cities have a greater variety of vehicles. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the University of California at Riverside has a fleet of Gem cars; Gem cars could be used by Building Inspectors, Interoffice Mail and the Library Department. Councilmember Daysog stated there is general excitement regarding alternative fuels; guiding principles for managing the fleet are before the Council; alternative vehicle discussions would be helpful but should be a separate item. The Public Works Director stated alternative vehicle discussions have started. Councilmember Daysog stated that he wants to know why an alternative is practical or impractical at some point. Councilmember deHaan stated the City declared itself as an electric City in 1996; the City partnered with Calstart to move forward ; efforts evaporated in 1999; the commitment was not fulfilled; Alameda Power and Telecom can be the City's leader; electric cars are not being made in the United States the electric car philosophy should be revisited. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution adding the following language : WHEREAS there have been dramatic increases in the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel, and there are anticipated continued long term escalation of these prices due to supply; and WHEREAS the current use of gasoline and diesel fuels have adverse effect on the environment while alternative cleane… | CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-05-16 | 10 | Mayor Johnson inquired when renovations for Woodstock Park would start. The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the City has until 2012 to spend the grant money; stated Ritler Park would be renovated after Godfrey Park; Woodstock Park would be renovated next; the Woodstock Park design is more involved because of drainage problems in the neighborhood. louncilmember Matarrese inquired why renovation for Ritler Park would be before Woodstock Park. The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded renovation for Ritler Park would be quicker; stated renovation for Woodstock Park would start next year in late summer or early fall. Mayor Johnson stated starting renovation next year makes sense; Woodstock Park would not be open for the baseball season if work started next spring. Councilmember deHaan inquired when the park and facility naming policy would be brought to Council, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded June 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (06-269) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there have been various lobbying efforts to allow triple tractor trailers on California highways ; California currently bans triple tractor trailers; shipping companies are attempting to get the legislation through the State; the Governor has indicated some interest last time the issue was proposed; a subcommittee vote lost by a margin of eight to five; requested that the matter be placed on the agenda; stated citizen safety is a concern; there is potential for jackknifing and major wear and tear on local roads. Mayor Johnson concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore; inquired whether triple tractor-trailers could be restricted in Alameda. The City Attorney responded probably not; stated there may be State and Federal preemptions; a number of Alameda streets are considered State highways. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the matter should be placed on Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 May 16, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-06-06 | 10 | Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other cities have adopted resolutions opposing the State legislation. The Assistant to the City Manager listed cities that have adopted similar resolutions. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated truck drivers are not in favor of the legislation. Councilmember Daysog stated the operative clause " oppose any proposal or legislation at any level of government which would allow increases in the size and weight of trucks and number of tractor trailers permitted on State Highways" seems to be more general than the issue of the triple tractor trailers; the language should be tightened to the issue at hand. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he supports the resolution as written; the resolution speaks to the infrastructure issue; safety factors would not be better with bigger and longer trailers. Councilmember Daysog stated that the resolution does not state opposition to truck-only lanes as noted in the staff report; some areas of the State have reasons for truck-only lanes. The City Attorney stated currently the State occupies the field regarding the weight and size of trucks permitted to travel on State Highways; the resolution does not oppose a truck-only lane but opposes any legislation to increase the current State restrictions; the staff report describes a way around the issue by seeking legislation that would permit private or public partnerships with CalTrans to receive funding for truck-only lanes from somewhere else. Councilmember deHaan stated further deterioration would occur with increased weight roads deteriorate quickly enough. Councilmember Daysog stated goods needs to be moved by rail, ships and trucks; large trucks are not wanted in Alameda; moving goods by truck is an economic reality; the resolution should speak to triple tractor trailers. Councilmember deHaan stated weight per axel is a concerning factor. Councilmember Daysog noted Sports Utility Vehicles exceed the weight restrictions outlined in the City's ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resoluti… | CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-06-07 | 10 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY- - -JUNE 7, 2006- -5:31 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:35 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (06-025) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case : Community Improvement Commission V. Cocores Development Company. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission received a briefing from its legal counsel and gave direction and settlement parameters. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission June 7, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-06-20 | 10 | (06-332) - Councilmember deHaan stated Oakland's Ninth Street Project was discussed last November; the impacts would be the same as Alameda impacting Oakland Chinatown; Alameda should voice concerns regarding closing off transportation corridors. the Off Agenda Report on the matter should be shared with the public; Council needs to communicate with the general public; the Chamber of Commerce made a presentation on the matter. (06-333) Councilmember deHaan stated the Alameda Development Corporation (ADC) controls some efforts with the Bayport Housing project requested an Off Agenda Report on ADC's health and welfare and how the present individuals running ADC interface with the developer. Councilmember Daysog stated Council and staff would be vigilant in ironing out any wrinkles with the ADC. (06-334) Mayor Johnson stated Disaster Preparedness was discussed at the Mayor's Conference; federal funding comes to the region, not to the City; requested a report on which agency the money goes to and how the money is distributed. (06-335) Councilmember Daysog encouraged the public to attend the movie by Al Gore regarding the environment; stated the movie is very informative. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 June 20, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-07-05 | 10 | an outline of other duties the position might serve, and a rational for the position being where it is now along with some possible alternatives when the matter returns. (06-361CC) Resolution No. 13999, "Approving and Adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Said Fiscal Year. " Adopted; ( (06-041CIC) Resolution No. 06-145, "Approving and Adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Said Fiscal Year. " Adopted; and ARRA Resolution No. 38, "Approving and Adopting the Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Said Fiscal Year. " Adopted. The City Manager/Executive Director provided a brief presentation. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the budget was presented very clearlyi he is concerned about the General Fund revenue; requested that revenue increases or decreases above or below projections be categorized as reliable or unreliable at the sales tax mid-year review; stated the sales tax is still lagging and should be watched carefully; revenue increases or decreases can be included in the ten-year modeling and projections to evaluate how to adjust expenditures moving forward. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether information was available on sales tax projections. The Finance Director responded the June quarterly report should be received by the first of August; the Sales Tax Consultant prepares the analogies and summary results; she would try to get the reports sooner. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated there is a commitment to continue with conservative budgets; the budget increase is less than projected growth in revenue; an Alameda Power and Telecom briefing has not been done. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether a joint meeting has been scheduled with the Golf Commission. The City Manager/Executive Director responded various joint Special Joint Meetin… | CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-07-18 | 10 | services; bicycle riders are complaining that the ferries do not have enough room for bikes; bike accommodations would be an improvement. Mr. Castleberry stated the WTA would not believe that transferring City ferry services is a good idea if riders would not benefit; the WTA is eligible for funds that the City is not; 25% of operating funds would be for landside connections; transit agencies can be paid to cooperate; boats are being designed to carry 100 bikes. Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated he was impressed with the WTA's presentation; he is not an opponent or proponent at this point he is concerned with 1) possible affects on cross-estuary services, 2) what the WTA would offer to reduce ticket prices, 3) greener propulsion systems and other green initiatives, including solar and sail powered ferries, 4) guarantees for customer services, and 5) bike commute provisions. Councilmember Daysog stated people in Alameda love the ferry system; the two Alameda ferry systems service particular markets; he is not inclined to move forward with the negotiations; key points need to be considered; funding streams should be given back if boats are given back; concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore's comments regarding getting the same boats back with a longer guarantee period. Councilmember Matarrese inquired how much discussions would cost, to which the Ferry Services Manager responded the discussions would cost staff's time. Councilmember Matarrese inquired what would not be done while WTA discussions are conducted; stated he would like to have an analysis of the two paths going forward; Council could make a decision on whether it is worthwhile to tie up staff time to get $200,000 and give up local control; he is not willing to authorize discussions until the analysis is made. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated one of the key issues has to be protection of Alameda's services because the ferry system is a necessity; protection is necessary in case the Oakland to South San Francisco run becomes more profitable and Alameda services are cut. … | CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-07-26 | 10 | project; the City of Oakland is contributing $57 million to renovate the Fox Theater; she is happy that the Historic Theater is being renovated as a theater and is owned by the City; her personal preference would be to restore the Historic Theater as a single- screen theater Council needs to be responsible for how much public money is spent; she would support a motion to support the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated there is an "Other Costs" line item for the parking garage and theater rehabilitation; the line item for the parking garage is over $1.4 million and over $1.8 million for the theater; a cost breakdown was provided for both line items; the document is available as a public document. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether phasing is planned for the theater restoration. The Development Services Director responded the construction project would start within the next 30-45 days; stated the Historic Theater construction will be the most time consuming; the plan would be to do the garage and then the Historic Theater; the Cineplex would start two to three months later; the entire project should be completed within a year and a half; a $3 million grant application was submitted to the State for historic preservation money; high marks were received except in one category; she does not think that one evaluator understood the financial statement the grant would be resubmitted and she is optimistic about receiving the grant. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that the point of his failed motion was to further analyze Scheme 2; costs are involved with a stand alone, three-screer theater. cautioned colleagues from using scare tactics such as General Fund dollars subsidizing the project stated the Golf Complex, ferry system, electric and cable systems are all self-funding enterprises; revenue would be generated through retail which could help towards running the theater. options need to be vetted. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated she brought up the General Fund because dollars co… | CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-09-05 | 10 | Councilmember Daysog stated that he voted against the matter because he voted against having an RV park on the West End and to be fair he did not want to support expansion of an RV park on Harbor Bay. Mayor Johnson noted the original RV park was a requirement the City put on the developer. The Planner III stated expansion was also part of the original requirement. Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers Gilmore and Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan - 2. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (06-443) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's denial of the alteration of more than thirty percent of the value of historically designated single-family homes at 1530, 1532, and 15321/2 Ninth Street and adoption of related resolution. The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Matarrese stated three duplexes are being created; inquired whether the square footage of the lot complies with Measure A, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether variances are not needed, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether some of the four outstanding issues outlined in the staff report have been resolved. The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated trim replacement has been resolved; new windows would be needed for energy conservation. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the hardboard siding issue has been resolved. The Reconstruction Specialist II responded that she has been in extensive conversations with Chris Buckley and the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) ; stated an agreement has Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 September 5, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-09-19 | 10 | Mayor Johnson inquired how the value of the work is calculated, to which the Fire Marshal responded the value is calculated on the same data evaluation table used by the Building Department. Following Mr. Kirwin's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether feedback has been received on new construction; stated the concerns seem to be with remodels. The Fire Marshal responded that he met with Alameda Point Community Partners, Catellus, Doric Development, Warmington, Peter Wong, Resources for Community Development, Park Street Business Association, WABA, Alameda Association of Realtors, Chamber of Commerce, and Harbor Bay Homeownership Association. Mayor Johnson inquired whether anyone had concerns, to which the Fire Marshal responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether any of the speakers have concerns with new construction. Mr. Kirwin stated costs would be higher for new occupants. Councilmember Matarrese inquired how the 25% threshold was selected. The Fire Marshall responded 25% to 50% is the range other cities use. Councilmember Matarrese stated he does not understand the rational for using the lowest range. The Fire Marshal stated he felt 25% was a reasonable percentage based upon building values and remodeling. Mayor Johnson inquired whether all cities use the same value calculation, to which the Fire Marshal responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson inquired what other methods are used, to which the Fire Marshal responded assessed valuation and current building value. Mayor Johnson inquired whether some cities use fair market value, to which the Fire Marshal responded that he would provide the information. Councilmember Matarrese stated the 25% threshold precludes people from investing in earthquake retrofitting and multiple upgrades that may spread across a number of units; he would like to review Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 September 19, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-10-03.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-10-03 | 10 | The Building Official stated the logic was based upon the common good of seismic retrofitting; the City benefits from not having buildings damaged in earthquakes. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the office-tenant improvement fee is for projects over 5,000 square feet. The Building Official responded the fee was based on a typical office-tenant improvement cost; stated new fees would be established based on the type of building construction, occupancy, and square footage. Councilmember Matarrese stated he does not see the logic in having a dramatic increase for a hurting area. The Building Official stated the logic was based upon cost. Councilmember Daysog inquired what is the percentage of residential fees versus commercial, particularly office-tenant. The Building Official responded permit fees amounted to $180 million last year; $96 million was for residential remodel and additions, which is approximately 50%; new home fees were approximately 20%; commercial fees were approximately 30%. Councilmember Daysog inquired how much of the commercial fees were office-tenant improvements, to which the Building Official responded the bulk of the 30%. Councilmember Daysog stated residents would be paying less; the pre-build conference fee was $125 three years agoi the $125 fee should be $140 based on a 4% annual inflation rate; the proposed $144 pre-build conference fee seems reasonable. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the false alarm fee included burglar alarms, to which the Building Official responded currently there are no false alarm fees for Fire Department responses, only Police responses. Mayor Johnson inquired how alarms are identified. The Fire Marshal responded alarms are identified as a burglar or fire alarm when received at the central station; stated fire alarms are reported to the dispatch center and triggers the response from the Fire Department. Mayor Johnson inquired how the new fee would be applied. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 October 3, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-10-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-10-17 | 10 | Councilmember Daysog stated that 17 units are better than the applicant's proposed 26 units; the question is whether 17 units are desirable. The Supervising Planner stated a commitment has been made in the Housing Element to get a certain number of affordable housing units in the MU-5 area. Councilmember Matarrese stated the commitment is not to put all of the units on the parcel. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the owner reviewed other development opportunities. Mr. Harper responded a proposal was submitted for work/live stated the General Plan dictates what can be done. Councilmember deHaan inquired what would be the value to sell to the City. Mr. Harper responded the land becomes more valuable closer to the Estuary the City wants half of the applicant's property and also wants the most valuable half; a tremendous commitment would be required and is one that the City should have undertaken long ago. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether cleanup evaluations have been performed. Mr. Harper responded the cleanup is almost complete. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the cleanup is almost complete even though the buildings have not been removed. Mr. Harper responded surveys have been done; stated cleanup has been underway for a long time; the land is not that contaminated; the applicant intends to clean up to full standards. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether determinations have been made on the park portion, to which Mr. Harper responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan stated cleanup considerations would need to be addressed if the City purchased the property. Mr. Harper stated the applicant would perform the cleanup if the City wants to buy the property. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 60 [foot] setbacks are part Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 October 17, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-11-21 | 10 | additional East Bay Paratransit and Friendly Taxi Service coupons. Approved. The Public Works Director provided a brief presentation. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a performance metric was being maintained in order to compare the number of riders per year, to which the Public Works Director responded that he would check. Councilmember Matarrese requested an updated performance comparison for the duration of the service. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (06-565) Resolution No. 14042, "Authorizing Applications for the Measure B Bicycle/Pedestrian Countywide Discretionary Funds and the Bicycle Transportation Account to Conduct an Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study, Appropriate Measure B Funds as Local Match, and Authorize the Public Works Director to Execute All Necessary Grant Documents. Adopted. The Public Works Director provided a brief presentation. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired what type of modifications could be made to the Posey Tube. The Public Works Director responded changing the railing and doing some cantilevering of the bike path; stated an opportunity may exist with a third ventilation tube that runs through the center of the two existing vehicular tubes. Councilmember Matarrese stated periodically he rides his bike through the Posey Tube to commute to Berkeley; the Posey Tube is the preferred crossing because there is no wait for a bus; the walkways should be reviewed; he is willing to consider all three options. Councilmember Daysog suggested performing an analysis on a plan to clean and maintain the Tube's walls. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda, (submitted handout) thanked the Public Works Department for pursuing the feasibility study ; stated many options are available; ninety-five bicyclists and pedestrians rode Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 November 21, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2006-12-05 | 10 | Counci lmember deHaan stated that he and Councilmember Daysog worked together on the Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG) i noted that not many Councilmembers have served with such dedication as Councilmember Daysog has done for ten years. Councilmember Daysog stated that he has never missed a regular Council meeting. Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember Daysog has done a lot for the community; Alameda is in a much better place because of the ten years louncilmember Daysog served on the Council. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 December 5, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-02 | 10 | approved in 2003 have not been met but must be met before the buildings designs are approved, to which the Planning and Building Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the proposed project violates any conditions of phase completion. The Planning and Building Director responded the east/west sidewalk is the key condition. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether anything prevents Council from approving the designs of the buildings while withholding the occupancy permits until the issue is resolved with the Planning Board. In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, Mr. Kyte requested clarification on what issue needs to be resolved. Councilmember Matarrese stated an east/west pedestrian way was to be constructed by Phase 2-B. Mr. Kyte stated the condition was modified; compliance is with a north/south sidewalk in lieu of the east/west sidewalk; the installation of the east/west sidewalk would be easy to accept if the developer had control of all the properties; the developer is working with staff to figure out how to accommodate the sidewalk; the issue is being addressed under the current PDA. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the north/south sidewalks are intended to be in place of the east/west sidewalks. Mr. Kyte responded in the affirmative; stated the developer thought that the requirement was met. Councilmember Matarrese stated a condition was placed on phasing; someone made an administrative decision on a condition that was put in place by the Planning Board. The Planning and Building Director stated one of the resolutions requires that the administratively changed condition go back to the Planning Board for a proper hearing to see what is feasible now Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the action could be taken at the next Planning Board meeting. The Planning and Building Director responded a month might be needed to go through the engineering and feasibility and for the developer to talk with the property owners to gain support for an Regular Meeting Alameda… | CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 10 | The Supervising Planner stated Council could modify the condition to include the Grand Street elevations. Mayor Johnson inquired what type of landscaping would be provided on Grand Street. The Supervising Planner responded the Homeowners Association would provide new sidewalks and landscaping; big trees are not proposed because of utilities. Mr. Day stated Warmington Homes has agreed to design the third story as close to the Murano project as possible. Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not see a distinction between the market rate and affordable home designs. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he sees the potential for forty new Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) customers; inquired whether an AP&T marketing plan and hookup installation could be added to the conditions, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions and introduced ordinances with the following exceptions : 1) the Planning Director is to work with the Applicant to redesign the third floor pop-ups to look like the examples of the Murano project in Cupertino, 2) directed staff to work with the Applicant and Christopher Buckley on the Grand Street elevations, 3) eliminate slider windows, and 4) AP&T be installed and marketed similar to the Alameda Landing project. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (07-033) Consideration of an appeal of the Public Works Director's decision to deny a request to remove eight street trees along 2101 Shoreline Drive in accordance with City's Master Tree Plan. The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many units are affected by the eight trees, to which the Public Works Director responded approximately ten to twenty units. Councilmember Gilmore inquired when the trees were last pruned. The Public Works Director responded approximately seven years ago; stated the Tree Pruning Program funding was reduced. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 January 16, 2… | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-02-06 | 10 | sidewalk if the City is not responsible for the damage; letters are sent to homeowners requesting that the sidewalk be repaired. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City could provide homeowners with the name of a sidewalk repair contractor. The Associate Civil Engineer responded homeowners are provided with the name of the City's Contractor in order to get a better rate. The Public Works Director stated homeowners are provided with the name of the City's Contractor; the cost would be twice as much as the bid price if the City did the work through the Contractor ; mobilization and demobilization costs are higher for smaller areas. Mayor Johnson inquired whether homeowners could get a better price by getting a bid through the City's Contractor, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the permit fee could be waived by using the City's Contractori stated the permit fee is $80 to $90. The Public Works Director responded permit fees are waived for the first 25 linear feet of sidewalk replacement. Mayor Johnson suggested putting the City's sidewalk repair Contractor contact information on the City's website. Councilmember Gilmore thanked staff for a very detailed report; inquired whether residents are provided with care and feeding information when trees are planted; stated most homeowners do not know the consequences of improper watering. The Public Works Director stated young trees need deep watering in the first three to five years. Councilmember Gilmore stated the first step is educating the public. The Public Works Director stated a PVC sleeve would be used with all new sidewalk replacements. Mayor Johnson stated money would be saved in the long run if proper steps are taken; money is saved when tree pruning is eliminated, but costs are incurred when sidewalk, streets, and gutters are damaged. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 February 6, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-02-20 | 10 | On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (07-090 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Golf Commission. Mayor Johnson nominated Bill R. Delaney. (07-091) Vice Mayor Tam stated she attended the League of California Cities East Bay Division February 15, 2007 dinner meeting bond funding allocation principles and term limits were discussed. (07-092) Councilmember Matarrese requested a report on the new Library operations, staffing and long range plans, including library branch improvements. (07-093) Councilmember Matarrese requested that staff provide a picture and an Off Agenda Report on how Long's will look after construction is complete; requested that staff inquire whether Long's would consider landscaping the corner across from City Hall. (07-094) Councilmember deHaan requested that vegetation options be considered for Long's north side. (07-095 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated CalTrans plans to replace the Webster Street Tube lighting similar to the Caldecott Tunnel lighting; there is garbage in the Webster Street Tube entryway the fence is damaged Alameda's gateway looks scraggly. (07-096 - ) Mayor Johnson stated she spoke to Oakland Councilmember Quan regarding the City of Oakland's styrofoam ordinance which has been in effect since January 1, 2007; San Francisco's ordinance will become effective July, 2007; Berkeley has an ordinance. requested that the Climate Protection Campaign Task Force review the matter. (07-097) Councilmember deHaan thanked staff for efforts made to eliminate the clothing collection bins on public areas. The City Manager stated Code Enforcement was responsible for the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 February 20, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-03-06 | 10 | roadway to get to the Alameda Towne Centre; requested staff to work on rectifying the Whitehall Place walkway with the Alameda Towne Centre developer ; concurred with Vice Mayor Tam regarding having a bus stop close to Alameda Hospital. Councilmember Matarrese moved that the matter be sent back to staff with review by the Transportation Commission to look at alternatives to the Sandcreek Way bus stop and possible rerouting of the 63-line to Shoreline Drive. Mayor Johnson suggested including other alternatives developed by staff. Councilmember Matarrese amended his motion to include other alternatives that may be developed by staff in concert with AC Transit. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated increased ridership is important; people need to have the opportunity to use the bus service to the utmost. ouncilmember Gilmore stated information has been requested on the number of riders and how many times the bus stops. Councilmember Matarrese stated said information would part of the technical discussion. Councilmember Gilmore stated direction should be given to complete said technical discussion. Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Gilmore. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (07-112 - ) Ed Gersich, Alameda, discussed the need for a bus stop at the USS Hornet. Mayor Johnson inquired what is the closest stop to the USS Hornet, to which Mr. Gersich responded the Ferry Terminal. Mayor Johnson stated bus service was a lot closer before. Mr. Gersich stated the USS Hornet had bus service before the [AC Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 March 6, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-03-20.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-03-20 | 10 | fee prior to the operational audit is premature. Neil Coe, Chuck Corica Senior Golf Club, stated there are not many players on Fridays. Mayor Johnson stated the Monday through Friday rate was changed to Monday through Thursday because the golf course was so crowded on Fridays; the situation does not exist now; inquired whether the Monday through Friday weekday rate should return. Jane Sullwold, Golf Commissioner, responded Friday play was busy when monthly passes were good on Fridays; stated additional revenue was not being generated. Mayor Johnson suggested having Monday through Friday rates with no passes allowed. Ms. Sullwold stated the proposal allows passes on the Jack Clark course on Fridays. Councilmember Gilmore stated that the fee schedule is confusing; the fee schedule could be changed twice in four to six months if fee changes are approved and the Consultant's Operational Efficiency Report suggests a rate change; suggests postponing the matter until the Consultant's report is reviewed and the Golf Commission can meld the recommendations and come up with a fee schedule. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a consultant reviewed the fee schedule recently. Mr. Wood responded a consultant reviewed the fee schedule last year. Mayor Johnson stated the current consultant would not be looking at an in-depth fee analysis but would review operation. Mr. Wood encouraged Council to review the previous [Consultant's] report stated the public should not be confused. prime golfing months are coming up soon. Mayor Johnson stated a lot of changes are not being made; the biggest change is the non-resident monthly pass fee; she opposes a non-resident monthly pass; no other golf course gives a non- resident monthly pass; monthly pass abuse needs to stop; penalties should be imposed. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether tournament play would be Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 March 20, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-03-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-04-03 | 10 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - -APRIL 3, 2007- - -6:00 P. M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (07-140) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95) ; Claimant Ronald Wilhite; Agency Claimed Against : City of Alameda. (07-141) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases One. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Workers' Compensation, Council received a briefing and gave staff settlement parameters with direction; regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council received a briefing from Counsel regarding a threat of litigation; no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council April 3, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-04-17 | 10 | people already in permanent, supportive housing and excludes people who are couch surfing or doubled up but have no right to remain the housing HUD's definition for chronic homelessness is single, unaccompanied adults who have been homeless for a year or more or four or more times in the last three years and who have a disability; all families are excluded from HUD's definition of chronic homelessness. Mayor Johnson stated the issue was presented at the U.S. Conference of Mayors last spring homeless advocates were concerned that resources could be diluted because an adult child who lives in a parent's house could be included. inquired whether an adult child living in a family member's house could be included as a homeless person. Ms. Gardener responded the Plan has a thrust for the HUD definition of chronic homeless and families who are truly homeless and have no other place the live. Mayor Johnson inquired how the definition would exclude an adult living with a family member. Ms. Gardener responded the definition does not exclude said adult, but said adult is not the focus. Mayor Johnson stated that the committee did not recommend that a similar plan go forward at that time to the entire Conference because they were concerned about reducing the amount of benefits available to homeless under the traditional definition. Ms. Gardener stated a significant number of families and homeless youth would be excluded by focusing on HUD's definition of homelessness. Vice Mayor Tam welcomed Ms. Gardener to Alameda; stated that she worked with Ms. Gardener when she chaired the Alameda County Planning Commission; the Social Services Human Relations Board's Community Needs Assessment noted that approximately 13.6% of respondents experienced nomelessness in the last three years; inquired how homelessness was described in the City of Alameda requested comments on unique findings within the City that are different than other parts of the County and that may be barriers to providing the type of affordability needed to contribute to… | CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-05-01.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-05-01 | 10 | Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 May 1, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-05-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-05-15 | 10 | that the forum is developer driven; the development at Bay Farm gave rise to Measure A; the discussion on Alameda Point development might give rise to a tightening of Measure A, which will not be known until the discussion is held. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is concerned that the leadership which the Planning Board would bring to the debate would be lost if the committee is made up of members of the public; the Planning Board is the Council's land use advisory body and has a significant amount of expertise that should not be lost combining the Planning Board members with people on the other side of the debate brings a richer framework for how the public forum would be shaped, as well as inviting Woody Minor to be a panelist at one of the workshops Councilmember deHaan stated similar thoughts were raised at the Planning Board meeting; adding other parties to the committee was discussed and was not pursued; starting with Woody Minor was brought up a couple of meetings prior; understanding pros and cons that have occurred during the last 34 years has to be done to make the forum meaningful the forum is not needed to address design and land usage issue, which are already being addressed at the MTC ; there has to be much more to the dialogue. Mayor Johnson recognized Planning Board Member Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft. Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft stated the three subcommittee members met after the Planning Board appointed the subcommittee and prior to the Appeal/Call for Review; at said meeting, one of the first names that came up as a good starting point was Woody Minor; that she takes copious notes and no one expressed a desire to overturn Measure A; the discussion was about what the Council would want as a deliverable, probably at least three alternatives the subcommittee also discussed wanting to hear from people in as many different areas as possible and how to do as much as possible on a very limited budget; urged Council to give the subcommittee 30 days to come up with something and return to the Planning Board or Council; … | CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-05 | 10 | Mayor Johnson inquired what percentage of the fare box recovery is from riders boarding at Jack London Square. The Public Works Director responded estimates show that the City could make a 40% fare box recovery without Oakland; stated the fare box recovery is approximately 53% now. Mayor Johnson stated Oakland's percentage of fare box recovery should be known. The Public Works Director stated the fare box recovery might exceed 75% i conservatively, the fare box recovery is 65%. Mayor Johnson stated the fare box recovery should be factored in if the increase is approved and staff negotiates with the Port of Oakland. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the fare increase should be approved; staff should negotiate with the Port of Oakland; the Port of Oakland should contribute as well as help with the effort to capture commute riders from the new population south of Highway 880 in the Jack London Square area; the Harbor Bay marketing was successful; he would like to see the same increase on the Oakland side. Mayor Johnson inquired where the money came from for the Harbor Bay marketing. The Ferry Manager responded the Water Transit Authority (WTA) funded direct mail pieces. stated the City funded the Alameda component i the WTA paid for some signs throughout the City. Mayor Johnson stated the marketing was successful; the City should work with the Port of Oakland to develop a similar marketing campaign. The Ferry Manager stated the key to the campaign was a direct mail piece for a free ride offer. Councilmember Matarrese stated that [paying for a marketing campaign] is the hook if the Port of Oakland refuses to come up with the 5% residents in the hundreds of lofts units south of Highway 880 should be ferry riders; negotiations should include the Port of Oakland and the City of Oakland; Alameda is responsible to the voters, the Port of Oakland is not; negotiations should be broadened to include the District 3, District 5, and at-large [Oakland] Councilmembers. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 June 5, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-19 | 10 | concession area, and approved the project design the lobby leaf work will be very bright; the concession stand will not detract from the beauty of the lobby. Commissioner Tam stated the theater is projected to be completed a month ahead of the parking garage; inquired whether the theater and parking garage would have to open at the same time. The Redevelopment Manager responded the theater requires tenant improvements; stated the operator needs sixty days to install the seating, concession case work, ticket booth equipment, etc. ; the theater cannot open without the garage the garage can open without the theater; staff is working on a schedule to open the garage in January. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether parking fee management and support have been discussed; stated nothing is noted in the budget. The Redevelopment Manager responded staff is working with all departments; stated an operations and management plan has been drafted and reviewed by the Economic Development Commission, the Transportation Commission, and Park Street Business Association; a budget is being finalized; more information is needed before going out to bid for a parking management contract. Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the fee schedule. The Redevelopment Manager responded fifty cents per hour, which is the same as on-street parking; stated incentives need to be created so that people use the parking garage; extensive outreach needs to be done before the parking garage opens; staff would present the operations plan to Council in September an ordinance needs to be adopted to allow public parking garages. Chair Johnson stated that the project is moving along well; the public needs to know that conscious decisions have been made to spend some of the contingency. Commissioner Gilmore requested that renovation pictures be posted to the website. MINUTES ( 07-021) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on May 15, 2007. Approved. Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes. Annual Meeting Communit… | CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-07-03.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-07-03 | 10 | Contract disputes; employees were told to leave the premises at 1:30 p.m. yesterday and a lockout occurred at 4:30 p.m.; rates have increased; requested Council support. Councilmember Matarrese stated Alameda's trash and recycling is handled through Alameda County Industries (ACI) ; the School District has Waste Management; school is out of session except for a couple of campuses. The City Manager stated two summer school programs are in session; Waste Management is the hauler for the School District; the City has a different hauler. Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda's green waste goes to the Waste Management facility; he would like to understand the situation [lock out ] better. Regular Meeting 10 Alameda City Council July 3, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-07-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-07-17 | 10 | The Public Works Director responded the City received three letters; stated staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to work with the three property owners to reach a compromise. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the list [of property liens ] changed. The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the original list had 65 property owners; the revised list has 32 property owners. Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the total amount of delinquent charges, to which the Public Works Director responded $16,849. Councilmember deHaan stated the list has decreased. The Public Works Director stated the list has decreased because of the threat of placing a lien on the property. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the list includes repeaters, to which the Public Works Director responded the list includes one repeater. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she received letters and emails regarding the issue; inquired whether staff has a sense of whether Alameda County Industries (ACI) made efforts to resolve payment and service issues prior to the point of placing a tax lien on the property. The Public Works Director responded staff worked with ACI on said concerns in the past; stated three letters are sent to property owners advising that the City has the option of collecting delinquent bills via property taxes if the bill is not paid. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether ACI helps resolve some of the issues before bringing the matter to the City. The Public Works Director responded that he thinks ACI does a very good job with customer service; stated the customer service logs are very explicit; ACI makes the public aware that the City has a vacancy exemption. Regular Meeting 10 Alameda City Council July 17, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-08-07 | 10 | at the corner of Otis Drive and Park Street in 2003 when the proposed shopping center expansion went through the Planning Board; stated the shopping center contributed whatever their portion was at that time. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether said requirement was in writing; stated the requirement would be triggered when the threshold is met because of the gas station or the shopping center regardless of the additional square footage. The Supervising Planner responded the traffic study looked at all three scenarios; stated the left turn movement out of the shopping center onto Otis Drive during rush hour would fail the threshold using the City's threshold of significance under cumulative conditions in 2025 the gas station would be contributing to a significant impact at the intersection. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the project [Safeway Gas Station] would require a signal without consideration of future expansion. The Supervising Planner responded the threshold would be triggered within the next twenty years when the project is considered with other projects have been approved but not built, including the 112,000 square foot shopping center expansion approved by the Planning Board a couple of years ago, other projects such as the Chinese Christian School, and population growth of a half a percent per year stated the threshold would not be met with the project [Safeway Gas Station] alone. Councilmember Matarrese stated that new information has not been provided since the last Call for Review; a bio-diesel blend would be available; different fueling options will need to be considered in the next twenty years; the developer has done a great job in bringing quality stores to Alameda Towne Center the proposed site is preferable to the previous gas station location. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Board's Approval of Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001, Major Design Review DR05-0010, and Use Permits UP06-0003 and UP06-0014. Mayo… | CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-08-21 | 10 | School on a Safe Routes to School; inquired whether said issue affects the intersection. The Community Development Program Manager responded the intersection upgrade is at Paru Street and Encinal Avenue near Jay's Coffee Shop. Vice Mayor Tam stated that the Planning Board denied the extension of hours because the additional hours would increase by 38% inquired whether Council has the discretion to decide how many hours are too much. The City Attorney responded the question of whether a use is expanded is a factual question first; a non-conforming use cannot be expanded once a factual determination has been reached that there is an expansion of use. Mayor Johnson stated that the question is whether a change is an expansion of use; there is a balance if the owners close the auto repair in exchange for additional gas station hours. The City Attorney stated the request can be granted if a factual determination is made that there is no net increase or net expansion; the Municipal Code states that non-conforming uses cannot be expanded. Councilmember Matarrese stated that a mini mart or increased square footage would be an expansion; inquired whether the Municipal Code distinguishes between expansion and intensification of an existing use within a Use Permit. The City Attorney responded there is no express distinction in the Municipal Code; stated a mini mart or increased square footage would be prohibited; the Planning Board made a factual determination that the additional hours would result in an increase in use. Councilmember Matarrese stated a new condition is the Applicant': intent to reduce the sale of diesel. Councilmember Gilmore stated in 1974 the property was rezoned to R- 4; the gas station operated as a gas station with no restrictions on hours; the owners wanted to do repair services in 1992; a Use Permit was required; inquired why the Appellants would still need a Use Permit if the auto repair is removed. The Planning Services Manager responded unlimited hours of Regular Meeting 10 Alameda City Council Au… | CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-09-04.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-09-04 | 10 | Counci lmember Matarrese stated that he requested that the matter be placed on the agenda in order for everyone to understand the scope of work and intent before the first workshop; requested staff to provide a background on the project. The City Manager stated a priority setting workshop would be held between Council and the Executive Management team on September 11; staff developed work plans based on Council direction; Council will have an opportunity to review the plans and discuss priorities ; Management Partners has been hired to structure and facilitate the process i Council interviews were conducted; environmental demographics and department interconnectivity will be discussed: Council will review Citywide priority objectives. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is concerned that the staff report and consultant's report do not mention public participation; priority setting is a policy decision; policy decisions need to be made in public; there is no mention of how the public will be engaged or whether the workshop would be broadcasted; a daytime meeting limits the public's ability to participate; his biggest concern is to focus on a public processi he does not want to end up with another strategic plan. Mayor Johnson stated that the workshop would be a public meeting; another public meeting would be held in November a report should be provided on the outcome of the first meeting; said report should be placed on the internet to allow feedback. Councilmember Matarrese stated details should include whether minutes and broadcasting would be provided and how the loop would be closed to ensure decisions are memorialized. The City Manager stated a report would be provided; the workshop would be recorded and the priority setting would feed into the budget process, which provides an opportunity for public input. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is supportive of the process; thirty-two different priorities were identified when Council had a joint meeting with the Planning Board; the workshop will help to bring all… | CityCouncil/2007-09-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-09-11 | 10 | City of Alameda Summary of Priority Setting Workshop - September 11, 2007 Work Plan Priorities In advance of the workshop, the Executive Management Team prepared individual work plans that listed key projects to be accomplished. The work plans also noted the on-going work of their departments. At the workshop, Council members asked questions of department heads in order to understand the work plans. Following that discussion, each Councilmember was provided with 14 dots in order for them to indicate their priorities among the items on the work plans. Each Councilmember placed seven orange dots on their highest priorities and seven green dots on their high priorities. While all of the items on the work plans are there because they are important, knowing the Council's key priorities helps the staff set work flow priorities - particularly when new projects emerge or other urgent issues arise and timelines must be shifted. The list of projects identified by Council members as their high and highest priorities are provided in Attachment A. All projects receiving at least 1 dot (of either color, noting highest or high priority) are included. The priorities are organized by department; those projects receiving Council majority (3) for any combination of high/highest priority are noted in bold. These priorities are in draft form and will be further discussed at the second City Council/Executive Management Team workshop to be held in November 2007. The following is a list of the projects receiving at least one "highest priority" dot and at least two "high priority" dots. For each project, the Citywide objective it relates to is identified. Two point values were attached to each "highest" priority and one point value was attached to each "high" priority for ranking purposes. FIGURE No. 1: COUNCIL'S HIGHEST PRIORITIES AND CITYWIDE OBJECTIVE EACH PRIORITY RELATES To Lead Department Project Priority AP&T Address Telecom financial issue - implement 10 points plans/recommendations (5 highest) Objective 7: Continuously improve i… | CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-09-18 | 10 | COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (07-459) Vice Mayor Tam stated that she attended the League of California Cities Annual Conference from September 5 through September 8; the League failed to work with a bi-partisan State Legislator to get Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 8, which relates to eminent domain reform, on the ballot; a Howard Jarvis group will try to place a competing measure on the ballot to restrict local control on eminent domain; listed the League elected officers; further stated the Assembly voted to support the following resolutions 1) renewal of the League's grass routes network, 2) infrastructure for the aging population, 3) a 300-foot distance requirement between new residential care facilities, and 4) consolidation of the Office of Emergency Services and Homeland Security in order to reduce redundancies in the roles of the two offices. (07-460) Councilmember deHaan stated that he attended the League of California Cities Conference; Attorney General Jerry Brown was very candid regarding Assembly Bill 32, which would require reducing emissions to 1990 carbon footprint levels; legislation will not be in place until 2012 and will need to be met by 2020; the Attorney General was wearing a different hat when building out 10,000 residential units in Oakland and is now in the position to sue cities that are not fulfilling the commitment. (07-461) Councilmember deHaan stated that he took a tour of McClellan Air Force Base on Saturday; the Base had a successful transition because of adaptive reuse with high concentration of uses from the federal, State and county governments; he was delighted to see the Air Museum; seven acres were purchased for $450,000 after site control was gained. Mayor Johnson stated that the Air Museum is a beautiful building and is a good example of a successful museum; not all museums are successful; requested that staff provide Alameda Museum with information on the Air Museum's budget, revenue sources, and business plans. Councilmember deHaan stated that he has the contact informa… | CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-10-02.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-10-02 | 10 | Councilmember Matarrese stated said information is valuable; the entire regional economy is being reviewed; Alameda needs to ensure representation. The Deputy City Manager stated that the Bay Area Council is one of the Bill's sponsors and has been advocating very strongly for the legislation. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (07-484) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Revising Various Sections of Chapter II (Administration) , Chapter VIII (Traffic, Motor Vehicles and Alternative Transportation Modes) , and Chapter XII (Designated Parking) to Modify the Transportation Commission's Purpose and Authority. Introduced. The Public Works Director provided a brief presentation. Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed Alameda. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the [signal chirping issue would have been addressed if the matter was not brought to Council's attention. The Public works Director responded new traffic devices will be brought to the Transportation Commission now. Councilmember deHaan inquired where red zones and bus stops issues would be addressed. The Public Works Director responded that his decisions could be appealed to the Transportation Commissioni stated the Transportation Commission decisions could be appealed to Council; Council's decisions would be final. Councilmember deHaan stated the Transportation Technical Team would still meet because the Team is made up of staff which meets regularly. The Public Works Director stated on-going meetings are scheduled on a monthly basis with the Police Department. Councilmember Matarrese stated the two tables show the authorities of the proposed changes as well as the summary of changes clearly. Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 October 2, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-10-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-10-16 | 10 | Oakland, Berkeley, and Kensington residents and elected officials have used Kitchen Democracy as one of many ways to openly discuss community issues; Alameda Point development is a huge issue; the decision process is especially controversial because of the potential impact on the region. Mayor Johnson inquired whether elected officials are writing regarding the matter. Mr. Howard responded in the affirmative; stated the purpose of the forum is to allow elected officials to post an issue and solicit feedback. Mayor Johnson inquired whether elected officials solicit feedback but do not engage in the conversation; further inquired whether anyone has looked into Brown Act issues. Mr. Howard responded that he would ask Kitchen Democracy about Brown Act issues. Mayor Johnson stated there could be Brown Act violations if more than one Councilmember participates in the discussion. (07-509) The following speakers discussed the animal shelter : Kathy Marks, Alameda; Mary Sutter, Alameda Jim Gotelli, Alameda; Daniel Mosso, Alameda; Kate Beck, Alameda; Judy Brock, Berkeley; Donny Chu, Alameda; Howard Goldberg, Berkeley; Christa Nicholas, Alameda (provided handout) The Police Chief provided a brief report on the matter. Councilmembers requested certain information and suggested the matter be placed on a future agenda for discussion. (07-510) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed care giving. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (07-511) Consideration of the Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Civil Service Board, Golf Commission, and Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. Mayor Johnson nominated Peter Horikoshi for appointment to the Civil Service Board and Jeff Wood for appointment to the Golf Commission and continued the nomination to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. Mayor Johnson stated that Lee Perez has been the representative and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 October 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-06 | 10 | the parking rate; the meter schedule, which is different from what was adopted in the resolution, may state $1.00 but is not what the meters reflect and does not reflect the action taken by Council; the proposed resolution separates the parking meters from the Master Fee Resolution. Mayor Johnson stated that she has no problem with bringing something back to raise meter rates throughout the City; the garage rates should start out at a lower rate and for a longer period of time to encourage long-term users to park in the parking structure; other cities have shorter term parking in high priority areas; garage structure rates will be easy to adjust to because there are no individual meters; the rates can be changed later if necessary. Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor Tam stated that the resolution does not address how and where the funds would be expended and would be governed by the existing ordinance. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there would be future discussion on how the funds would be expended and whether or not the funds should be designated for Park Street. The City Manager responded the matter would be addressed in the budget discussion, which could include input from PSBA. Councilmember Matarrese requested input from the Boards and Commissions identified in the report when the overall parking study is completed. Councilmember deHaan stated that he feels a flat rate charge throughout the City would be better. Mayor Johnson stated the Webster Street District might be a concern because said District is not as robust as the Park Street District; the matter needs to be reviewed; directed staff to review raising meter rates throughout the City. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (07-527) Resolution No. 14157, "To Increase Civil Penalties for Parking Violations. Adopted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 November 6, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-13 | 10 | City of Alameda Summary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007 ATTACHMENT A - LIST OF HIGHEST AND HIGH COUNCIL PRIORITIES The following projects are listed in order of the number of votes given by Council members at the 9/11/07 Council/EMT Priority Setting Workshop. The bold items are those receiving at least 3 "highest priority" dots on 9/11/07. All projects receiving at least one dot (either "highest" or "high" priority) on 9/11/07 are listed below. These will be reviewed, modified and/or confirmed at a future Council meeting. Some of the items have been modified in response to comments made by Council members at the 11/13/07 Council/EMT workshop. Those changes. are noted below in italics. 9/11/07 Lead Department Project Priority 1. AP&T Address Telecom financial issue - implement 5 highest plans/recommendations 2. Housing Authority Work with the Housing Commission to 3 highest develop an acquisition and development plan 1 high for expanding affordable housing opportunities using the remaining Measure A Guyton exemption (Alameda Hotel; Islander) 3. Development Former Navy Base Redevelopment - Secure 3 highest Services Conveyance of Alameda Point from Navy and negotiate development entitlements with SunCal 4. Planning & Building Transportation Element Update (General 3 highest Public Works Plan) Transportation/Traffic Planning [Note: two projects (Transportation master plan; pedestrian plan) have been combined 2 highest into this one] 1 high 5. Planning & Building Customer Service Improvement Committee 3 highest work items (project ADD) 6. Public Safety Disaster Preparedness/Update Disaster 1 highest Mitigation Plan and the EOC Plan 3 high 7. Planning & Building Soft-story seismic retrofit program 1 highest [Note: the word 2 high "incentive" was eliminated between "retrofit" and "program"] 8. Recreation, Parks Prepare and implement comprehensive 3 high and Golf operation review of Golf Course operations 9. Planning & Building Housing Element Update (General Plan) 2 highest 10. Recreation, Parks and Ren… | CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-20 | 10 | park, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the area includes up to where the park that terminates at the Fortman Marina. The Public Works Director responded the area is included if the area was constructed as part of the subdivision. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the budget covers staff or contractors. The Public Works Director responded the budget includes administration cost as well as cost for any work done by staff or contractors; stated landscape maintenance has been done by contractors for years. Mayor Johnson inquired whether future infrastructure maintenance is covered. The Public Works Director responded sewers are not covered because money is collected from property taxes; the Maintenance Assessment District pays for street and sidewalk maintenance. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (07 -552 - ) Recommendation to approve re-use of the Carnegie Building as the Community Arts/Planning and Building Center, amend the Contract with Muller & Caulfield Architects to provide architectural and engineering services for design development through the construction phase of the Carnegie Restoration and Preservation Project, appropriate funds in the amount of $481,816 to execute the Contract, and authorize the City Manager to seek debt financing. The Building Official made a brief presentation and introduced Rosemary Muller of Muller & Caulfield Architects and Alan Dreyfus of Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Ms. Muller gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the balcony proposed for the Museum use could be constructed on the outside of the building. Mr. Dreyfus responded the idea was reviewed; stated it would be Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 November 20, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-12-04 | 10 | the agenda for discussion; with said history for background, she would suggest that [staff report item] b state: "The City Council after discussing the item may do any of the following;" she would take out number 1) [take no action] because, by and large, the Council does take an action, the issue is discussed, the matter might be deferred, which is even taking an action; she wants to make sure whatever the item, that the matter gets discussed; putting the matter on the agenda ensures that the matter is discussed; numbers 2 and 3 can be left as is; she would suggest that the practice be implemented and, six months after adoption, the issue be placed on an agenda to discuss whether Council likes the practice and hear what the public thinks. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether said suggestion was a motion, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the City Attorney indicated that the City Manager has the authority [over the agenda]; inquired how an item is placed on the agenda under the jurisdiction of the City Attorney or City Clerk. The City Attorney inquired whether Councilmember deHaan meant Closed Session items, to which Councilmember deHaan responded in the negative. The City Attorney stated the only things that she has the power to put on the closed session agendas are certain attorney-client privileged communications within the Brown Act she can put said matters on the agenda because she needs to be able to talk to the Council since she works directly for the Council; however, she does not have any authority to go to the City Manager and request that a matter be placed on the agenda she has no such power under the Charter; she is not a policy maker and is not involved in operations. Councilmember deHaan stated there would be an upcoming discussion on Charter amendments, which do not come under the City Manager. Mayor Johnson stated the matter comes under the voters. Councilmember Matarrese stat… | CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-12-18.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2007-12-18 | 10 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - -DECEMBER 18, 2007- - - -7:25 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:48 p.m. Commissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (07-057) Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project. The Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation. Commissioner Tam inquired whether tenant improvements would be in place and in operation by March. The Redevelopment Manager responded most tenant improvements would be done by March; stated the time schedule is very aggressive and both tenants are working hard to open in March; the latest date would be some time in April. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the additional 250 seats would be configured the same way, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative. AGENDA ITEMS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission December 18, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-12-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-01-02.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-01-02 | 10 | Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is hearing that a City managed alternative is worth pursuing to fruition; the Golf Commission has suggested renovating the back of the Clubhouse in lieu of building a new, clubhouse; making driving range improvements advertising ; looking at leasing five to six acres of the south course for revenues; and potentially leasing ten to twelve acres of the Mif Albright Course; it would be very helpful to get the NGF's help in coming up with hard numbers for said suggestions. The Recreation and Park Director stated staff could work with the NGF to attach a value to the options; a Master Plan would take approximately nine months by the time community outreach was done. Councilmember Matarrese stated nine months seems excessive; a lot of work has been done already a plan is essential even if the operation is leased out entirely; otherwise, a blank slate would be given to proposersi developing a Master Plan and attaching values to all ideas for reducing costs per round need to be done as quickly as possible; he would like to include a breakdown of labor costs and true costs of a lease operation; the RFP would address operating the Golf Course in the current configuration. The Recreation and Park Director stated the RFP would address operating the Golf Course and completing desired capital improvements. Mr. Getherall stated the City could solicit alternatives from potential operators. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she does not like the idea of having a potential operator tell the City want the City wants; a Master Plan should be provided to potential operators indicating what the City wants. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of allocating money for staff to start on a Master Plan, requesting the NGF to help the Golf Commission explore options discussed and potentially starting the RFP process that would provide enough wiggle language so that bidders understand that the City would have a Master Plan upon which to build. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he seconds the first part of the… | CityCouncil/2008-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-01-15 | 10 | would be the result on the calculations by assuming a 4.5% medical inflation rate after 10 years. Mr. Bartel responded healthcare becomes 100% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) if healthcare continues to grow in the high single or low double digits and general inflation is 3% the scenario of doing nothing means having natural market forces controlling healthcare costs which results in private sector entities dropping healthcare coverage the end result would be 50% of the population uninsured something would need to be done; the actuarial accrued liability might be 30% higher if the grade is increased from 4.5% to 6% accounting standards suggest that an evaluation every two years for agencies that have more than 200 participants. Mayor Johnson stated a two-year evaluation is fine, but the chart should not go out as far as it does based on a 4.5% medical inflation number; assuming that the federal government will adopt a national healthcare plan is very optimistic. Mr. Bartel stated that he is reluctant to project beyond a ten year period in terms of actual dollars; he cannot predict what will happen ten years from now. Councilmember Matarrese stated that Pay-As-You-Go could be much more expensive than pre-funding with a fund that starts having a return from investments. Mr. Bartel stated Pay-As-You-Go is similar to how social security is funded today; a check is written when the payment is due; social security has a trust fund; the trust fund will run out in approximately 15 years; tax dollars will not be sufficient to pay for expected benefits; social security is funded by a quasi pre- funding; CalPERS and private sector retirement systems require that money be set aside so that there is money in a trust and the money will be there as people retire; the City has entered into a contract with CalPERS to pre-fund benefits. Councilmember deHaan stated many municipalities have addressed the issue. Mr. Bartel stated that he has performed approximately 150 evaluations; he predicted that four out of five of his clients… | CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-02-05.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-02-05 | 10 | category for school funding. Under discussion, Mayor Johnson stated Councilmembers should be able to add or review specific issues on an on-going basis and there should be an expedited process. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is in support of the motion; the Program would enable her to be more productive at the League of California Cities' meetings. Mayor Johnson stated the Alameda County Conference of Mayors is adopting a Legislative Program in order to become more politically active at the State level. The City Manager stated staff would be able to respond to legislative alerts; departments may want to add to the list. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA ( 08-057 - ) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed the danger of waste. (08-058) Bill Dodge, Alameda, discussed the crisis in healthcare and education; urged Council to call a crisis meeting to see what the City can do. (08-059) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, discussed the Disaster Preparedness Fair on February 9 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the Garden Isle Community Center. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (08 3-060 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Housing Commission and Mayor's appointments to the Airport Operations Committee and Rent Review Advisory Committee. Mayor Johnson nominated Ching-Ching Ganley for appointment to the Housing Commission and appointed David Perry to the Rent Review Advisory Committee; continued appointments to the Airport Operations Committee. (08-061) Councilmember deHaan stated that he attended the Housing Regular Meeting Alameda City Council Meeting 10 February 5, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-02-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-02-19 | 10 | The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Matarrese inquired the date that the School District has to notify its employees, to which the Deputy City Manager responded March 15. Councilmember Matarrese stated the District has to give notices before knowing its budget situation; it is important that the Council weigh in on the issue and send a message as a governing body; the health of City is dependent on the health the School District in some ways. Vice Mayor Tam stated Council should oppose any funding cuts. the School District is having an advocacy day on February 27 and is requesting the support of elected officials. Councilmember deHaan stated the Superintendent sent a letter outlining a myriad of cuts; the quality of schools is one thing that brings people to Alameda; the Superintendent is proposing an emergency parcel tax; the district tried not to go to the voters for the last two years. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Johnson stated the letter should include examples the School District cuts over the last two years; last year, the middle school athletics program was cut citywide; that she does not know where $4 million in cuts will be found. Councilmember Matarrese stated the School Board reviewed closing a middle school and an elementary school and moving the Island High campusi effectively closing three schools and the layoff of around 50 teachers only cuts $2.3 million from the budget. Mayor Johnson stated examples like that make what School Districts are facing more real. Councilmember deHaan stated the Council and School District had a joint session last year; the City spends around $700,000 to support the schools; the City does many things to support schools the City is dealing with its own economic concerns, but has not jeopardized programs, such as crossing guards. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 February … | CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-03-04 | 10 | public discussion. Vice Mayor Tam concurred with Councilmember Gilmore. Councilmember Gilmore stated workshops could be held if revisions could be pared down to a workable mass. Vice Mayor Tam stated other cities, such as the City of Albany, formed a Charter Review Committee that has the specific task of reviewing the Charter on an on-going basis. Mayor Johnson stated that the City of Santa Ana has an on-going Council Subcommittee. The City Manager stated the City of Santa Ana has an ad-hoc committee that meets on a periodic basis. Councilmember Gilmore stated that Article IX subjects the appointment, discipline and removal of a deputy city clerk to the approval of Council; the subcommittee suggests deleting the provision to be consistent with other Charter provisions; suggested that the matter be a cleanup item. Vice Mayor Tam stated that Councilmember deHaan seeks to amend Section 2-11 to have the Charter preclude any incumbent of any elective federal, State, County, or local office from serving on a City board or commission that was created by the Charter. Councilmember Gilmore stated that Councilmember deHaan also wants the provision to include any board or commission created by the Council. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a Task Force committee would be included. Vice Mayor Tam responded the intent is for a standing boards or commissions. The City Clerk stated that all bodies created in the Charter are boards, everything else is a commission; commissions are created by ordinance. The City Attorney stated one example that Councilmember deHaan used was the Hospital Board, which is elected; having someone serve on the Hospital Board and also hold a position on a City board would not be a violation of the Charter. Mayor Johnson stated there would be a conflict of interest issue. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 March 4, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-03-18 | 10 | The Planning Services Manager stated that the Planning Board is willing to address building height on an individual project basis. Mayor Johnson inquired what was the Planning Board vote on the matter, to which the Planning Services Manager responded unanimous. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether shopping center height limits were discussed, to which The Planning Services Manager responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson stated the Planning Board's approach is good; having the same building height for each shopping center does not make sense. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was discussion regarding neighborhood retail centersi stated the previous policy aimed at reducing and containing said centers because retail in the middle of a residential area causes clashes; he hopes to get some language added regarding preserving the scale of neighborhood centers. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the issue is addressed in Policy 2.5.o. Councilmember Matarrese stated that Policy 2.5.0 addresses the size of stores. The Planning Services Manager stated a policy could be added. Councilmember Matarrese stated that Policy 2.5.0 should be modified to not only limit the size of a store but also to limit the size of the district. The Planning Services Manager stated the policy could require maintenance of the current neighborhood business district size. Mayor Johnson stated that the same policy should apply to conversion of residential units as a whole. Councilmember Gilmore commended staff and the Planning Board for all the hard work; stated Council has the strike-out and underline provisions for comparisoni the General Plan is a living document; periodic updates are important; having a document that reflects that there was community consensus on a particular matter is important. Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember Gilmore makes a good point Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 March 18, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-04-01 | 10 | Mayor Johnson responded in the negative stated anything new would be evaluated in terms of how it would impact the long- and short- term economic health of the City; Council wants to know how things will be paid for currently and 20 years from now. Vice Mayor Tam stated all staff reports include a section that addresses fiscal impacts; Council would like a broader context of understanding the short-term and long-term impacts; the budgeted amount for a vehicle should not be the end of the story. Mayor Johnson stated the long-term economic impact should be considered every time the decision Council is making has an impact on the City for twenty or more years. Councilmember Matarrese stated it is all about risks and benefits; the framework needs to include that Council always reviews the cost today and the cost as long as something is projected to run; costs need to be accounted for up front. Mayor Johnson stated, for perspective, the Mayor of Vallejo told her that if Vallejo has done anything good for other cities, they have shown that bad things can happen. Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not want to micromanage; the big picture is to stay healthy and viable. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she does not see the direction as an attempt to micromanage; Council needs to have information to make a good decision about the health, safety and welfare of the community, needs to truly understand the long-term and short-term trade offs, and needs to decide whether or not to accept the risk. Ms. Perkins stated all projects would move forward unless there is a reason and Council would be informed; the top nine priorities have been identified and a tenth has been proposed. Councilmember Matarrese stated the list is artificial; Item 9 is the Housing Element, which has to be done anyway inquired whether the Housing Element could be prioritized as Item 29 and would still have to be completed. Ms. Perkins responded in the affirmative; stated the intent of priorities is for the staff to know what is most important to the City C… | CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-04-15.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-04-15 | 10 | established twenty years ago; traffic impacts should be reviewed segments have been reviewed, but not the whole picture; he is very concerned with the Ferry service, which is only used during commute hours ; inquired whether there is a willingness to look at another design; stated the 300 foot notification requirement is an internal problem; said notification needs to be changed for large projects; the 100 foot height limit needs to be taken off the books further discussion is needed on the matter. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the traffic study was based on the 5 million square foot build-out. The Planning Services Manager responded two studies were performed; stated the original study addressed the 5.2 million square foot build-out last month, an additional study was performed to confirm that the project's trip generation would not generate any significant impacts that were not anticipated in the original traffic study. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the 1995 study was related to the airport, to which the Planning Services Manager responded said study was related to airport expansion. Councilmember Matarrese stated that traffic management needs to be reviewed for the existing roads some of the main concerns have been captured with the three additional conditions of approval ; requested that fast food restaurant language be added; stated that due process has been followed; he understood that all Harbor Bay Home Owner Associations were supposed to be notified; inquired whether said notification is required. The Planning Services Manager responded in the negative; stated all Home Owner Association Presidents will receive notification for any future Harbor Bay projects. Vice Mayor Tam stated assertions have been made regarding the staleness of the 1989 Environmental Impact Report SRM's attorneys state that "the City no longer has the discretion to take a second pass at the question of whether the project should be built due to potential impacts to wildlife, traffic generation, noise, site desig… | CityCouncil/2008-04-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-05-06 | 10 | place would require other changes that have to do with the existent City Manager authority. Mayor Johnson stated people complain to Council regarding aspects of City government Council has no control over the matter because of the way the Charter is drafted; Council always get the blame when bad things happen even though Council has no control. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he prefers to think of the matter in terms of accountability. Mayor Johnson stated that Council needs to have more power to hold people accountable. Vice Mayor Tam stated that the Charter gives the Council authority to hold the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk accountable. Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that he would hold his comments until the public workshops. Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed community involvement. Councilmember Gilmore stated the proposed Article 7 revision should be discussed at the next workshop; Council wants to delete the Section 2-11 provision and see what can be done to place the matter on the 2008 ballot; stated she did not hear any consensus from Council regarding Board and Commission nominations. Mayor Johnson stated Board and Commission nominations would create a rotating Mayor the City has a directly elected Mayor ; she would be opposed to the change; the matter would create a hybrid system and a rotating mayor process. Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to have further discussion on the matter. Vice Mayor Tam stated the direction is for the subcommittee to review three or four items in addition to the eight items being considered for a public workshop. Mayor Johnson stated the additional items could be discussed at the workshop. Councilmember Gilmore stated a lot depends on how quickly workshops are scheduled and the City Attorney's workload. Vice Mayor Tam suggested the seven items and cleanup package be Regular Meeting 10 Alameda City Council May 6, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-05-20 | 10 | Emergency Response, Preparedness, Mitigation, Prevention and Recovery within the City of Alameda. " Adopted. The Disaster Preparedness Officer gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson stated Council should understand what NIMS is before adopting the resolution; Council wants to have a clear understanding of the NIMS technical requirements. Councilmember Gilmore stated the State has a system in place; the federal government bases its system on what the State does; inquired what the City and Fire Department would have to do different operationally The Disaster Preparedness Officer responded the current Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) requires the City to identify an Emergency Operations Center, use said Center in the event of a disaster, and document expenses; stated said requirements are already in place; the federal government adopted the State's system; the federal government wants training to include the federal model of Command in Control as opposed to the State's model, which is essentially the same; Alameda County and a number of cities within Alameda County have adopted NIMS. Mayor Johnson inquired how much money Alameda receives from the federal government. The Disaster Preparedness Officer responded that he is not sure; stated Alameda receives $22,000 per year to support the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Program; the City would be eligible for other programs. Mayor Johnson stated Alameda receives very little money through Homeland Security; it is important to know the costs to implement NIMS. The Disaster Preparedness Officer stated costs could be provided moving forward with the updated Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is part of the reason for implementing NIMS. Councilmember Gilmore stated the City is already doing everything required Council would be adopting NIMS which would allow the City to scrape and fight for federal funds. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City is doing everything required. The Disaster Preparedness Officer responded the first compliance Regular… | CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-06-03 | 10 | Mayor Johnson inquired what would be the size of the committee, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded eight. Mayor Johnson inquired whether eight members would be enough. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not have any objections to broadening the committee as long as the focus is kept on the goal. Mayor Johnson stated the committee is a way to get the public involved in the City's financial issues. questioned whether every member should be required to be a resident. ; stated Alameda business owners, who are not residents, could be valuable; the committee should decide on whether a facilitator is needed. Councilmember deHaan stated the intention would be to have a facilitator gather data. Councilmember Matarrese stated the Chair would drive the meeting, not the facilitator. Mayor Johnson stated that she is thinking of a secretary. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is fine with having an Alameda business owner serve on the committee; the number of members should be set now. Councilmember Gilmore recommended that the committee not exceed ten. Councilmember deHaan recommended that the committee not exceed eleven. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the committee would not be a consensus committee. Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Matarrese recommended that the committee consist of eleven members. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the labor member would not be someone associated with the City. Councilmember Matarrese stated that his intention is to include a labor union representative who does not represent City employees because of contract issues and a vested interest. Vice Mayor Tam stated having a public safety union representative participate would be good because public safety unions make up 60% Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 June 3, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-06-17 | 10 | Special Meeting at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council June 17, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-07-01 | 10 | Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is very impressed with the number of people with expertise in the City; the City received a large number of applicants; the decision was difficult; all members are Alameda residents with the exception of Ms. Riski, who is Peet's Coffee Controller. Councilmember deHaan stated that the committee's timeframe is six months; a lot of community interest was received; the cross-section is quite commendable. Mayor Johnson stated that she considers the committee to be one of the most important things right now because of the City's economic challenges; informing the public is important. Councilmember deHaan stated today the City is living with decisions made twenty-five years ago. Mayor Johnson stated that Council wants to know long-term impacts when decisions are made. Vice Mayor Tam thanked Councilmember Matarrese and Councilmember deHaan for the hard work; stated public sector encourages people to use less services and products; private sector tries to increase use as much as possible. Mayor Johnson stated the capitalistic view is very important dollars are needed to pay for commitments made. Councilmember Matarrese thanked the people who volunteered. Mayor Johnson stated the committee needs to have access to whatever information is needed. The City Treasurer stated access to information is critical; requested that information be routed to him or the City Auditor in order to make it easier for staff to respond in a timely manner. Mayor Johnson requested that meetings and all information provided to the Committee be posted to the website for the public. The City Treasurer encouraged the public to pay attention when the conclusion is provided. Mayor Johnson stated it is important for the public to know how conclusions are reached. The City Treasurer stated that the committee will have a very impartial, objective look at the City budget and spending. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 July 1, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-07-15 | 10 | July 15, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-08-05.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-08-05 | 10 | resources to meet the dates. Councilmember deHaan stated the matter is coming to Council: the ICLEI committee [Climate Protection Task Force] would be coming to Council with recommendations that would get the City to that point [adoption of binding green requirements) ; inquired when the ICLEI report would come to Council. The Supervising Planner responded the ICLEI report was folded into the City's Local Action Plan. Councilmember Matarrese stated the effort he is discussing is adoption of codes that were recommended by the ICLEI committee. The Supervising Planner stated one of the priorities in the Local Action Plan is the sustainable design and green building standards, which Planning is working on. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are model ordinances; stated priority should be given to adopting regulations for new home construction, new multi-family residential development and new commercial construction; any new construction should be built with the new standards remodels and landscaping can be dealt with later; brand new construction should be built to the [green building] standards. Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter is fairly urgent because there is potential for new commercial and residential construction in the foreseeable future; requirements should be locked down sooner to have builders adjust accordingly. Councilmember deHaan stated Planning is going through the exercise to bring something forward. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants a date. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the matter is being considered by the Building Official or Planning Board. The Supervising Planner responded the Building Official is looking at the Building Standards adopted [by the State] on July 17; stated the standards are voluntary at the State level. the City would be making the regulations mandatory Building Codes do not go to the Planning Board; mandatory checklists added to the Zoning Ordinance would go to the Planning Board. Mayor Johnson inquired whether StopWaste has model ordinances. Regular Meetin… | CityCouncil/2008-08-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-08-19 | 10 | Mayor Johnson stated that rate increases have occurred, but operating expenses have increased also. Ms. Sullwold stated that the 2007 rate increase was insignificant, and had no impact on demand for play. Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion recognizes the Golf Commission's work; there are not too many other choices the cost to produce a round of golf is approximately $39.00, and fees are less than $39.00; the golfing public needs to help save the Golf Course. Councilmember Gilmore thanked Ms. Sullwold for providing the history on fee increases; stated that she is more comfortable with supporting the proposed fee increases. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether consideration was given to raising all of the Jack Clark fees to the current Earl Fry fees, and increasing the monthly fees by 10%-15%. Ms. Sullwold responded the Golf Commission considered a similar case scenario; stated not enough money would be generated; raising all Jack Clark rates to Earl Fry rates would generate approximately $100,000 a 10% annual pass increase would generate approximately $40,000; the Golf Commission was trying to come up with something more substantial; the Golf Commission ran a scenario of trying to raise all rates to a level that would generate $700,000 additional income and the rates were astronomical. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is not opposed to raising fees; inquired whether there is any way to recover the cost per round with the fee structure. Ms. Sullwold responded $39.00 is the average cost per round; stated some rounds are priced higher, some lower; rates need to be lower than more desirable competitors; the City does not offer some of the same amenities as competitors. Vice Mayor Tam stated the Golf course would be resigned to forever losing money if operating costs cannot be met. Ms. Sullwold stated the Golf Course could be in the black if a fee increase generates $300,000 an operator does some marketing and promotion, and strong management is in place. Councilmember deHaan stated approximately $1 million is be… | CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-09-02.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-09-02 | 10 | Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed maintenance and earthquakes. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam stated that the staff recommendation is appropriate and is a creative conversion to access more funding for deferred maintenance; opportunities for affordable homes would increase. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendations and adoption of resolution. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote : Ayes: Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Abstentions Commissioner Torrey - 1. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 2 Public Utilities Board September 2, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-09-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-09-16 | 10 | Mayor Johnson stated that the project was recommended to go to the Historical Advisory Board in error; the Applicants were ready to come to Council a month ago; an error was made in the noticing requirements; the project needs to move along. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of upholding the Planning Board decision and overturning the appeal. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam stated that the compromise is not between raising the building to be in conformance with the Code but is about trying to balance the form and necessity of the function of the building for the Applicant. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Council would be denying the appeal and approving the Planning Board recommendation with the only condition that the building not exceed thirty feet, to which Councilmember deHaan and Vice Mayor Tam responded in the affirmative. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the project has had a litany of fumbles; requested that a report be provided outlining preventative and corrective actions to prevent further occurrences, including communicating with applicants; the report should include information on the use of the Guide to Residential Design versus the Municipal Code, the place for review by the HAB, and notification process stated this is not the first time that the notification issue has come up; he would like the report soon so that Council should hear the matter within a month so that the same mistakes are not made again. Mayor Johnson stated the language in the section of the Guidelines referenced by Mr. Buckley creates ambiguity; requested that the Design Review Guidelines be brought back to Council for clarification The City Manager stated a resolution would be provided to the City Clerk to ensure that Council action is clearly recorded. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she appreciates staff's efforts to move the project forward; staff reached a compromise and there was no communication… | CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-10-07 | 10 | relates to truck traffic; further inquired what methodology is used to determine pollution levels. The Supervising Planner responded traffic noise is reviewed cumulatively over a long period of time; stated a Code Enforcement Officer measured shopping center noise levels from Ms. Healy': balcony levels did not come anywhere near passing City noise standards; levels spiked when an AC Transit bus came by or a police car sped down Otis Drive; neither situation would trigger a significant impact tonight's anecdotal comments cannot be qualified. Rebecca Gordon, Lamphier-Gregory, stated air quality is addressed in the final EIR; air quality is a regional issue; the San Francisco Air Quality Management District guidelines are used; the guidelines have thresholds that address when a project might have a significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ; the Alameda Towne Centre Project is below the threshold for the District. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether specific air quality testing would be used if a 250,000 square foot factory moved into a neighborhood. Ms. Gordon responded projections would be analyzed; stated factory emission thresholds are lower than shopping center emissions air quality analysis would be performed if residences are next to an existing factory because the factory is an emitter. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there is a way to compare past pollution levels to current levels. Ms. Gordon responded the Air Quality Management District tracks pollution over the years. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there is a way to narrow the comparison down to a specific area, to which Ms. Gordon responded in the negative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be concern if the shopping center were not utilizing all of the space. Ms. Gordon responded the previous expansion project was reviewed in a separate EIR and certified; stated additional impacts are being reviewed; the impacts will become part of the cumulative scenario. Councilmember deHaan stated that… | CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-10-21 | 10 | payments ; earning 6%-8% would result in additional revenue i the interest payment would be non-negotiable. Councilmember deHaan stated that Peralta Community College District had an approximate 2% delta between what was borrowed on a bond and what was earned. Mayor Johnson stated that a number needs to be set and consequences need to be known; requiring non-discretionary payments could be established through an ordinance or could be part of the Charter. Mr. Kenney stated that he would have an issue with issuing a bond on the entire obligation; a number of cities have partially pre- funded the obligation. The Interim Finance Director stated pension obligation bonds are taxable; borrowing $75.4 million of taxable municipal debt at today's rate would result in a $3.2 million payment; the bond would be a serial bond and would never stop. Mr. Kenney stated bond counsel could provide more information on the matter. The Interim Finance Director stated that paying the $75.4 million over thirty years would result in paying three times the amount; a bond would be good for pre-funding the obligation and controlling the difference of the delta every year. Mr. Kenney stated the pay-as-you-go approach is irresponsible; commended Council for facing the issue; stated more information is needed on how a pension bond would work. Mayor Johnson stated information is needed on paying the obligation over thirty years, the 1079 and 1082 Plans, and using [1079 and 1082 Plan] decreases to pay for the current [OPEB] plan. Councilmember Matarrese stated consensus is not to select the pay- as-you-go approach; to shoot for the $4.4 million; to review the pension bond alternative; and to see how $2.8 million from the 1079 and 1082 Plans figure into payment further stated a resolution or ordinance could be considered as a vehicle for locking in the payment commitment. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she wants information on General Fund repercussions. Vice Mayor Tam requested clarification on the $3 million that was to go into the OPEB [whe… | CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-11-06.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-11-06 | 10 | available for eligible employees, but there may be a problem with a pre-existing condition. Councilmember Gilmore stated Council has tried to get a hold on Golf operation costs and revenues in order not to blow through the Golf reserve fund in two years; the goal is to preserve Golf for the City; the proposal provides a way to reduce expenses and allows time to figure out the next stepsi thanked ACEA for being very creative and proactive; affected employees would have a year to come to a resolution with the City or find other employment overhead would be reduced; that she is in favor of ACEA's proposal ; that she would like to offer the same Golden Handshake and medical benefits to MCEA members. Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Gilmore. Vice Mayor Tam extended her appreciation to the Golf Commission and ACEA for helping the City develop some alternatives to get through dire economic circumstances in order to preserve golf in the City; stated the City needs to get a grip on dealing with decline in the rounds and erosion in the reserve fund in order to make sure golf is viable and sustainable long term; golf is an important asset in Alameda and provides a beautiful open space at Harbor Bay Kemper Sports' proposal includes putting in a Director of Marketing and Sales in addition to a Controlleri the City has been limping along for the last year; the Interim Golf Manager has done a fantastic job; that she appreciates ACEA helping the City to review options for increased savings it is important for the City to provide the best scenario for a soft landing for employees; ACEA'S hybrid proposal would help to achieve some savings, although not as much as the staff recommendation, and would help to move into the transition period while testing out the viability of an interim operator. Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of: 1) selecting Kemper Sports as the Interim Operator; 2) directing the City Manager to amend the ACEA Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) so that it is consistent with the terms and conditions outlined … | CityCouncil/2008-11-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-11-18.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-11-18 | 10 | The Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the policy includes liability insurance, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the cleaning fee would not apply if 400 people attend an event. The Redevelopment Manager responded that the cleaning fee schedule would be changed to reflect a cleaning fee for 400 people attending. Councilmember deHaan stated the cleaning fee might be a deal breaker. The Redevelopment Manager stated the cleaning fees would come directly from Alameda Entertainment. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the $48 per hour fee would cover full cost recovery. The Redevelopment Manager responded that an Alameda Entertainment Event Coordinator is very knowledgeable regarding the issue and would oversee management of events. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the fees are within the ballpark of other fees charged, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded the fees are higher. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there has been interest within the community [for use of the Alameda Theatre] The Redevelopment Manager responded the operator has received a number of calls; stated that she and the Recreation and Parks Department have received calls also. Councilmember deHaan stated the fees could prohibit use for graduations. The Redevelopment Manager stated fees could be changed. Mayor Johnson stated that Paramount Theater events are very expensive; people need to understand that clean up cannot be done by volunteers; appropriate fees need to be charged; otherwise, the City would be subsidizing private events for non-profit organizations renting the Alameda Theatre cannot be compared to renting Lincoln Park. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 November 18, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-11-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-12-02.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-12-02 | 10 | Counci lmember Matarrese stated dollar figures need to be added; inquired whether the Fire Department deals with chronic emergencies, to which the Fire Marshall responded infrequently. Councilmember Matarrese stated a trigger point needs to be established for maintenance issues. Mayor Johnson stated that people should not call the Fire Department for water heater issues. The Fire Marshall stated a pilot light could be extinguished if a basement floods and would create a natural gas leak. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Fire Department would turn off the gas valve, to which the Fire Marshall responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired why the gas main would not be turned off. The Fire Marshall responded service would be turned off to the entire building. Councilmember deHaan stated the Fire Department provides emergency services ; commercial businesses can take care of maintenance issues. Mayor Johnson stated most taxpayers object to tax dollars being used to pump out basements or lock outs. The Fire Marshall stated the Fire Department does not respond to non-emergency car lockouts. Mayor Johnson inquired about house lockouts. The Fire Marshall stated the Police Department would be called for identification purposes; people are advised to call a locksmith if there is not an emergency; the Fire Department would charge for the call. Mayor Johnson stated that people need to know the dollar amount of the call. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether costs are recovered for fire inspection as noted in the Laundromat situation, and whether the matter could be dealt through violations; that she does not think that $420 per hour is cheap. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 December 2, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-12-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-12-16.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2008-12-16 | 10 | scheduled for tomorrow; stated the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 period is the worry; the City will be hit with between a 1% and 5% increase if losses are not recovered. Mayor Johnson stated people need to know how the PERS system works i PERS does not take any risks; PERS sends the City a bigger bill if investment goals are not met; requested a long-term budget forecast. The Interim Finance Director stated today's market makes it very difficult to do a five-year forecast; a five-year revenue and expense projection could be done once the City gets passed the next six months and service levels are established for the next twenty- four months; now is the time to stay cash rich; that she has been advised that rates will drop 3% to 4% in March or April. Mayor Johnson stated expenses need to be forecasted. The Interim Finance Director stated the City would not be able to write a check for unfunded liabilities in one or two years; the City can chip away at unfunded liabilities within sixty months. Vice Mayor deHaan stated a new, national recovery plan is proposed every week; other cities are closing down one day per week; the City needs to understand all options. Councilmember Matarrese requested that the Fire and Police Chiefs make a presentation on current service levels and potential cuts before any significant change is proposed for service delivery; stated Council needs to provide policy direction before pulling the trigger. The City Manager stated staff would discuss plans for next year's budget as well as potential brown outs at the next Council meeting. Mayor Johnson stated discussion should include flattening the organization also. The City Manager stated the issue would be part of the policy discussion. Vice Mayor deHaan stated other options should be presented also. Mayor Johnson stated staff should be creative; Sunnyvale and Rohnert Park police vehicles are labeled "Police/Fire". COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 December 16, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-12-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2009-01-06 | 10 | lay offs and that is what is being faced; the report is about the current service level; requested a detailed description of preserving 95% of the current [Fire] service level; inquired what happens when a brown out occurs. The Fire Chief stated a lot of data was analyzed; not all data could be obtained; two things affect service level : response time and getting the proper amount of resources to the incident his statement that 95% of the current service level would be preserved is based on the two factors; the analysis for 2008 showed no impact on resources; there was not a fire incident where the City was not able to provide the necessary resources; there will not be a catastrophic shortage of resources when responding to fires; response time differs depending on apparatus; less than 5% of all calls will be impacted with a higher response time. Councilmember Matarrese requested an explanation of not obtaining all data wanted for analysis. The Fire Chief responded staff hoped to obtain data for more years and by station and company; enough data was obtained to do adequate analysis and back up the conclusions drawn. Councilmember Matarrese inquired what scenario would involve an increased response time; stated the average response time is currently 4 minutes 30 seconds inquired what would happen during a brown out when the City is in the 5% mode. The Fire Chief stated that he would provide individual scenarios. for medical calls, the Fire Department responds with an engine and an ambulance; there are paramedics on the engine and ambulance; if an ambulance were browned out, the impact would occur when there are three or more concurrent ambulance calls; said scenario happened 241 times last year; based on the staffing pattern last year, an ambulance would only be browned out 15% of the time or 50 days, which translates to about 36 delayed ambulance calls. Councilmember Matarrese inquired how long the delay would be. The Fire Chief responded the delay would depend on the location of the call and the ambulance; the r… | CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2009-01-20 | 10 | Councilmember Tam stated that Americans with Disabilities (ADA) needs were assessed last year inquired whether there is some way to overlap and meet the multiple objectives so that the City gets the most for the dollar. The Transportation Coordinator stated the ADA Transition Plan is a required document the proposed Pedestrian Plan is not a required document but goes above and beyond what is required by the ADA; the proposed Pedestrian Plan does not include ADA projects, except audible pedestrian signals, and is not required to be funded. The City Manager stated Council is indicating the proposed plan is a good tool and staff should look at high priority projects and the use of the $1 million. Councilmember Tam moved [adoption of the resolutions ] certifying the EIR with the Transportation Element as recommended by the Transportation Commission with respect to Policy 4.4.2.f and approving the Pedestrian Plan and revision of the 1991 Transportation Element. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated a GPA can have mitigations attached and provides a very direct policy statement about what has to be done; that he would like to have three scenarios included in the Transportation Element : 1) the project can be denied; 2) the project can be approved with a statement of overriding concern; or 3) the project can go forward with an exemption or amendment to the General Plan; Alameda does not have streets that can be widened without taking out houses or businesses, with the exception of Wilver "Willie" Stargell Avenue. parking is at a premium in Alameda; worthy projects can go through a GPA; the process sends a clear message to developers. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she supports the motion; that she is very leery about moving forward with something that would remove parking when the balancing act between parking and widening a lane is unclear; that she has sympathy for a right- turn lane during commute hours; widening streets may result in more congestion; maintai… | CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2009-02-03 | 10 | months stated a fix it ticket should be issued; perhaps the matter should be transferred to the Building Department. Councilmember Matarrese stated the responsibility should be on the property owner because the City has the leverage of a lien. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 February 3, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2009-02-07 | 10 | be spent without Council approval, to which the Interim Finance Director responded only Council can authorize use of money from the fund balance. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the policy could be specifically stated, to which the Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Red Wetherall, Alameda, stated the policies have been discussed and should already be in place; encouraged appropriate use of volunteers. The Interim Finance Director stated Section III on Budget Administration and Financial Reporting includes a lot of "how to" items. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether requirements are mandated by outside agencies. The Interim Finance Director responded the annual report and audit of certain funds are mandated. Councilmember Matarrese suggested flagging policies which have additional requirements. The Interim Finance Director stated interfund transfers and loans are addressed under Revenue Management [Section IV]; most language for User Fee Cost Recovery [Section V] was drafted and adopted prior to her arrival: numbers and percentages need to be updated; Policy V.H. 2 addresses appeal fees, which should be revisited. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding the appeal fee, the City Manager stated the matter would be added to the issue bin. Mayor Johnson stated the City has had some experience under the current situation; it is time to review the fee. Councilmember Matarrese stated the broad policy question deals with whether or not the appeal is granted; the fee should be the current amount if the appeal is granted; an increased amount should be paid if the appeal is denied; further stated there is a process for recovering user fees; inquired whether a policy addressing each user fee is needed. The Interim Finance Director responded that some language could be deleted; stated that she was creating a trail of what exists; continued her review; stated the ferry should be removed from the Enterprise Fund [Section VI]. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 10 February 7, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2009-02-17 | 10 | Mayor Johnson requested configurations for the Village VI and Mif Albright sites. The City Manager summarized Council's direction: 1) obtaining additional input and recommendations from the Recreation and Golf Commissions and Kemper Sports; 2) addressing the Village VI issue; and 3) placing the matter on the next agenda for Councilmembers Gilmore and Tam to comment. Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to review having two complete 18-hole courses or two 18-hole courses and a nine-hole course. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the community needs to be engaged in the discussion of options. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (09-081 - ) Follow up discussion and direction on Internal Service Funds repayment plan. Mayor Johnson stated that the Internal Service Funds were discussed at the Saturday Budget Meeting; that she wants to have further discussion on paying back the workers' compensation short fall. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he thought the City had a balanced budget back in June; the budget was not balanced because the General Fund and other funds contributing to the workers' compensation fund did not pay enough into the budget and showed up as a deficit in the Internal Service Funds (ISF) ; the deficit was pushed onto the next year the fund balance absorbs the debt; that he does not know how much unencumbered cash the City has because the workers' compensation debt encumbers the cash. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the solution discussed on Saturday was to pay the debt over the next three years. Mayor Johnson stated Information Technology (IT) has needs. the City Treasurer does not support the idea of moving money out of the vehicle reserve fund; money should only be moved out of the vehicle reserve fund to go to IT; the workers' compensation deficit should start to be paid for this year. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 February 17, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-02-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2009-03-03 | 10 | deconstruction requirement. Councilmember Matarrese responded the motion would include having the feasibility of deconstruction and reuse to the highest extent possible. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the motion could include efforts to relocate the building. Councilmember Matarrese responded that the motion would encourage relocation without holding up permits. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion as modified. Under discussion, Councilmember Tam stated that she supports the motion; forcing the property owner to restore the house against his will and possibly not receiving any historical value after restoration seems to defeat the purpose of forcing a restoration on the site. Councilmember Gilmore urged the owner to do everything possible to try and give away the house. On the call of the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes Vice Mayor deHaan - 1. (09-096) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's decision to conditionally approve a Certificate of Approval to alter more than thirty percent of the value of a historically significant residential building located at 1150 Bay Street for the purpose of remodeling a previous addition and adding a front porch. The site is located within an R-1, One Family Residential Zoning District; and adoption of related resolution. Councilmember Gilmore and Vice Mayor deHaan stated that they would recuse themselves on the matter because of living in close proximity of the subject property. The Planner III gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the existing porch is the original porch. The Planner III responded the existing porch is the original porch but has been modified; stated the side porch entrance was removed. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 March 3, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );