pages
241 rows where page = 20
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: body
date (date) 241 ✖
- 2005-01-10 1
- 2005-02-28 1
- 2005-05-17 1
- 2005-06-07 1
- 2005-06-13 1
- 2005-06-27 1
- 2005-07-19 1
- 2005-08-16 1
- 2005-08-22 1
- 2005-12-06 1
- 2006-06-20 1
- 2006-07-24 1
- 2006-09-05 1
- 2006-09-19 1
- 2006-10-03 1
- 2006-10-17 1
- 2006-11-13 1
- 2006-11-21 1
- 2006-12-05 1
- 2007-01-02 1
- 2007-01-16 1
- 2007-02-20 1
- 2007-03-20 1
- 2007-03-26 1
- 2007-04-17 1
- 2007-05-15 1
- 2007-06-05 1
- 2007-06-19 1
- 2007-07-17 1
- 2007-08-07 1
- 2007-09-11 1
- 2007-11-06 1
- 2007-11-20 1
- 2007-12-04 1
- 2008-01-15 1
- 2008-02-19 1
- 2008-03-18 1
- 2008-04-15 1
- 2008-05-06 1
- 2008-06-03 1
- 2008-06-17 1
- 2008-06-23 1
- 2008-07-01 1
- 2008-07-15 1
- 2008-08-05 1
- 2008-08-11 1
- 2008-08-19 1
- 2008-09-16 1
- 2008-10-07 1
- 2008-10-21 1
- 2008-12-02 1
- 2009-01-06 1
- 2009-02-03 1
- 2009-02-07 1
- 2009-03-03 1
- 2009-03-17 1
- 2009-05-19 1
- 2009-06-02 1
- 2009-06-16 1
- 2009-08-03 1
- 2009-10-20 1
- 2009-11-03 1
- 2009-11-17 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
- 2010-07-20 1
- 2010-07-27 1
- 2010-09-07 1
- 2010-10-05 1
- 2010-11-16 1
- 2011-02-15 1
- 2011-07-19 1
- 2012-03-12 1
- 2012-05-08 1
- 2012-05-15 1
- 2012-06-19 1
- 2013-04-02 1
- 2013-04-16 1
- 2013-07-23 1
- 2013-10-15 1
- 2013-11-05 1
- 2014-04-15 1
- 2014-07-01 1
- 2014-07-15 1
- 2014-09-16 1
- 2014-12-02 1
- 2015-01-20 1
- 2015-01-21 1
- 2015-02-02 1
- 2015-02-17 1
- 2015-03-03 1
- 2015-04-07 1
- 2015-05-05 1
- 2015-05-19 1
- 2015-06-02 1
- 2015-09-01 1
- 2015-09-15 1
- 2015-10-06 1
- 2015-10-20 1
- 2015-11-04 1
- 2015-12-15 1
- 2016-01-05 1
- 2016-02-02 1
- 2016-02-16 1
- 2016-03-01 1
- 2016-06-07 1
- 2016-06-21 1
- 2016-06-27 1
- 2016-07-05 1
- 2016-07-19 1
- 2016-09-20 1
- 2016-10-18 1
- 2016-11-01 1
- 2016-12-06 1
- 2016-12-14 1
- 2016-12-20 1
- 2017-02-08 1
- 2017-02-21 1
- 2017-02-23 1
- 2017-03-21 1
- 2017-04-04 1
- 2017-04-07 1
- 2017-04-12 1
- 2017-04-18 1
- 2017-05-16 1
- 2017-06-06 1
- 2017-06-20 1
- 2017-07-05 1
- 2017-07-18 1
- 2017-09-05 1
- 2017-10-03 1
- 2017-10-17 1
- 2017-11-07 1
- 2017-12-05 1
- 2017-12-14 1
- 2017-12-19 1
- 2018-01-16 1
- 2018-02-06 1
- 2018-02-14 1
- 2018-02-15 1
- 2018-02-20 1
- 2018-03-06 1
- 2018-03-20 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
- 2018-10-02 1
- 2018-10-16 1
- 2018-11-27 1
- 2018-11-28 1
- 2019-01-02 1
- 2019-01-29 1
- 2019-02-05 1
- 2019-03-05 1
- 2019-03-13 1
- 2019-03-19 1
- 2019-04-02 1
- 2019-04-16 1
- 2019-05-07 1
- 2019-07-02 1
- 2019-07-16 1
- 2019-09-03 1
- 2019-09-12 1
- 2019-10-01 1
- 2019-10-15 1
- 2019-11-19 1
- 2019-12-12 1
- 2019-12-18 1
- 2020-02-04 1
- 2020-02-18 1
- 2020-03-03 1
- 2020-03-17 1
- 2020-04-07 1
- 2020-04-21 1
- 2020-05-05 1
- 2020-05-19 1
- 2020-05-20 1
- 2020-06-02 1
- 2020-06-16 1
- 2020-06-29 1
- 2020-07-07 1
- 2020-07-14 1
- 2020-07-21 1
- 2020-07-25 1
- 2020-09-01 1
- 2020-09-15 1
- 2020-10-06 1
- 2020-10-20 1
- 2020-11-17 1
- 2021-01-05 1
- 2021-01-19 1
- 2021-02-02 1
- 2021-02-16 1
- 2021-03-01 1
- 2021-03-02 1
- 2021-03-11 1
- 2021-03-16 1
- 2021-03-30 1
- 2021-04-05 1
- 2021-04-20 1
- 2021-05-03 1
- 2021-05-04 1
- 2021-05-18 1
- 2021-06-01 1
- 2021-06-15 1
- 2021-07-06 1
- 2021-07-19 1
- 2021-07-20 1
- 2021-07-26 1
- 2021-09-07 1
- 2021-09-21 1
- 2021-10-05 1
- 2021-10-19 1
- 2021-11-02 1
- 2021-11-16 1
- 2021-11-30 1
- 2021-12-07 1
- 2021-12-21 1
- 2022-01-04 1
- 2022-01-18 1
- 2022-02-01 1
- 2022-02-15 1
- 2022-03-01 1
- 2022-04-05 1
- 2022-04-19 1
- 2022-05-03 1
- 2022-05-17 1
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-17 | 20 | Counci lmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates the clarity of the staff report. Mayor Johnson stated the proposal is a good approach to balancing the budget, which Council needs to continue working on; savings are the result of keeping positions vacant; a more permanent solution is needed to address on-going decreases and shortfalls in revenues the proposed budget is a good place to start; despite numerous budget sessions last year, a balanced budget was not reached thanked the Acting City Manager for his work; stated that she would like to see a combination of legal expenses in one place; legal expenses are under the City Attorney's office, Risk Management, and Alameda Power and Telecom; the legal budget should be more apparent; tracking is difficult when the entire legal budget is not in one place. The Acting City Manager stated staff would provide the information. Councilmember Daysog stated that he appreciates the summary highlighting the $1.9 million gap and how the gap was filled; inquired whether the budget includes the $1.8 million decrease in Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment (ARRA) funds. The Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the $1.8 million reduced ARRA revenue caused part of the problem. Councilmember Daysog stated the Recreation and Park Director position is being left vacant, which is leading to a policy issue of how the Council wants to organize department heads; under the Charter, the Council is responsible for organizing departments; a background on the issue should be provided when the budget adoption is considered. Mayor Johnson stated Councilmember Daysog is raising the type of long-term issues she was raising Council will probably look at reducing the number of department heads. Councilmember Matarrese stated the recommendation is simply for the next fiscal year; the position is not being eliminated; Council needs to make a decision about structure at some point. The Acting City Manager stated staff is not requesting the position be eliminated, but is requesting tha… | CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2005-06-07 | 20 | Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be a separate presentation for Risk Management, to which the Acting City Manager responded that Risk Management has been included in the City Attorney's presentation. Mayor Johnson stated that she would address the litigation contingency account issue later. Councilmember Daysog stated that service to the departments is an important issue; every Councilmember is in agreement with streamlining efforts; the Council appreciates the service that the City Attorney's office has rendered to the public on issues such as the Casino and the Oakland Airport; an 18% cut is a huge hit; stated that the value of the City Attorney's service to the citizens could not be overstated. The Acting Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation on the impacts of the budget reduction. Mayor Johnson inquired what the cost would be to implement the Park Master Plan. The Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded estimates are between $75,000 and $125,000, depending upon the number of public meetings, the review process, and the number of times the matter is brought back to various entities. Mayor Johnson inquired whether maintenance would be included in the Park Master Plan, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded the Park Master Plan would be an overall park plan covering almost every detail of the park system. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how many grants are successfully applied for each year, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded that the City received approximately $860,000 in grants from the last two State bonds [Propositions 12 and 40]; the three grants pending are Estuary Park, Paden School Trail, and Alameda Point Gym. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there has been a full-time grant writer in the past, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative; grant writing has been divided among the administrative staff. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that a grant writing position might be worth reviewing. Special Joi… | CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2005-07-19 | 20 | the rest of the people who receive automobile allowances and i adjustments should have been made accordingly after the opinion. Councilmember Daysog stated the car allowance for others is taxable and done through payroll. Mayor Johnson stated the amount is a gross amount; if the car allowance for other employees is $250, like the City Manager and City Attorney, the amount is taxable and other employees receive $160. Councilmember deHaan stated a select two were isolated to receive the adjustment, rather than reviewing how the law affects other employees. Mayor Johnson stated changes in the Contract should be done through a vote of the Council; sending a carbon copy to the Council is not a vote of the Council the Council can only act by voting and cannot act by non-response or consent by silence; concurred with Councilmember Matarrese's comments that it is a process question; the process that was used was not appropriate. Councilmember Daysog stated that he has a problem with stating that something that happened in 2001 was inappropriate; any Councilmember could have objected when the memo was received; no one objected; things are being done differently in the new era. Mayor Johnson stated the Council should have clear expectations of how to handle Contract amendments. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Council is indicating how the matter will be handled in the future. Mayor Johnson stated the Council has to vote to change a Contract. David Kirwin, Alameda, stated that extra benefits always have to be declared for tax purposes Council seems to be putting the benefit on payroll and covering the tax burden, which seems awkward. Mayor Johnson stated the Council is trying to undo the past practice [of covering the tax burden]; Council wants to have the amount set as the amount the employee receives regardless of the tax consequences. Councilmember Matarrese stated a decision has not been made [ about setting the vehicle allowance amount] ; that he was only requesting that changes require a vote of the Council. Regular Mee… | CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2005-08-16 | 20 | non-profit. Councilmember Matarrese stated the comparison [of rent with brand new theater ] is not fair. Councilmember Daysog stated that there is a fair comparison because people are going to walk into what amounts to a brand new historically restored theater. Councilmember Matarrese stated the building being historically restored makes a difference. Councilmember Daysog stated the historic restoration of the theater is on the City's dime. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City would own the building. Councilmember Daysog stated the City should charge a rent that is at least as close to fair market as possible. The Development Services Director stated that the developer would be happy to lease at $1.35 per square foot if the City wanted to build the cinemas. Councilmember deHaan stated the impact of the project on the downtown district is the real drive; that he cannot place a dollar figure on how the project will improve the environment and make the area more viable; catalyst projects are built to make things happen; Park Street has a new vitality in spite of the City; John Knowles was honored tonight; without real public funding, Mr. Knowles set a standard of small, unique stores; 70% of the merchants in stores ten years are gone because the City did not set up an environment to retain businesses. Councilmember Matarrese stated John Knowles project was not done in spite of the City and with no public dollars because the Redevelopment Manager's time was paid by the City's redevelopment agency part of the project's value is that the City is getting first run movies for $0.40 per square foot and people will spend money in town, rather than elsewhere. Councilmember Daysog stated that said value could also be realized at $1.10 per square foot. Councilmember Matarrese stated financial questions are outside whether or not the Council should uphold the Planning Board's decision, which is about design. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 August 16, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 20 | Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Matarrese stated there was a similar finding last year; inquired what was being done to prevent the problem from reoccurring. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City Manager could review and report back to the Council/Commissioners/Authority Members on the matter. The External Auditor stated the other recommendation was regarding the employees reporting directing to the City Council which are outside the normal reporting realm; suggested that the City's elected Auditor provide oversight to the City Clerk, City Attorney and City Manager departments to ensure checks and balances. Mayor Johnson stated spending issues were raised last year; significant changes were made under the direction of the Interim City Manager in the last six months of the fiscal year; stated that she has confidence in the new City Manager; the new Finance Director worked very closely with the City Manager on addressing previous issues; the City Manager and Finance Director should work with the City Auditor on an oversight proposal; stated having a system in place was a good idea. Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan stated the louncil/Commissioners/Authority Members have a responsibility to Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 6 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2006-06-20 | 20 | Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether enough money is budgeted for maintenance; stated maintenance needs to be done and cannot wait for the Turf Management Program. The Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded he is confident the funding levels will be adequate. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he is happy to see the planned Webster Street pedestrian signals; Public Works projects are distributed well throughout the City. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated she appreciates the response regarding how the redevelopment and tax increment process works; citizens need to understand that some funds come with restrictions on how the funds are to be used. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the redevelopment process is posted to the website, to which the City hager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) is receiving a 33% grant increase; inquired whether an increase is feasible for the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) . The Development Services Director responded the budget recommendation was to create parody between the two business associations; stated WABA was raised to the same level that PSBA was funded last year; PSBA's grant was not increased; there is some room for an increase to PSBA. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what increase could be given to PSBA, to which the Development Services Director responded 10% to 15%. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated WABA's grant increase should be brought up to 33% because of the streetscaping plans; directed PSBA's grant be increased by 10%, if possible. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Greater Alameda Business Association (GABA) requested funding, to which the Development Services Director responded not in the last few years; GABA received minor grants in the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 6 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 20, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2006-09-05 | 20 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - - SEPTEMBER 5, 2006- - -7:27 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:50 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. MINUTES (06-050) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting held on July 26, 2006; the Special Joint City Council, ARRA, CIC and HABOC Meeting held on August 2, 2006; and the Special CIC Meeting held on August 24, 2006. Approved. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEMS (06-051) Recommendation to consider Appeal of Determination that applicants are not eligible to purchase a below market rate home at Bayport. The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether income is verified immediately when applications are submitted, to which the Development Services Manager responded income is verified at a later time. The Development Services Director continued the presentation. Commissioner Gilmore inquired how many income tax years are verified. The Development Services Director responded that Alameda Development Corporation (ADC) did the preliminary background work; stated ADC received three years of income tax information prior to 2005; 2005 income tax information was not available; ADC received incomplete information because only pay stubs were received; income tax information was not received showing all income sources for the entire household; ADC found outside employment from the Peralta Community College District; only the primary employment source was Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 1 September 5, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2006-09-19 | 20 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) , COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC) MEETING TUESDAY- - - -SEPTEMBER 19, 2006- -7:25 P. M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:46 p.m. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call - Present Councilmembers / Authority Members / Commissioners / Board Members Daysog. deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Commissioner Torrey, and Mayor/Chair Johnson- 6. Absent : None. AGENDA ITEM (06-460CC/06-054CIC) Recommendation to approve an Implementation Agreement with Operation Dignity and Resources for Community Development for the construction of 39 Affordable Rental Units on a Portion of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese stated the Implementation Agreement is a big step in moving forward with affordable housing inquired what would be tradeoff if litigation were to continue. The City Attorney responded the Settlement Agreement would pave the way for the City to apply for grant funding and special State funds to help build 39 affordable housing units; stated qualifying for funds and specifically tax credit financing would have been difficult for the City without the Settlement Agreement Operation Dignity is willing to set aside current interest in the property to allow the City to receive financing through a tax credit program; Operation Dignity would defer leasehold interest for approximately seven years, would receive money to compensate for the wait, and would use the money to further enhance affordable housing in the community; the City would be relieved of millions of dollars in obligations to build the 39 affordable housing units. louncilmember/AuthorityMember/Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese stated millions of dollars would be saved, the City would have access to funds for affordable housing, and precious resources would be saved on… | CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-10-03.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2006-10-03 | 20 | Commissioner Daysog discussed legislation pertaining to eminent domain. Commissioner Matarrese stated the process makes sense as long as the notification and outreach for General Plan amendments in redevelopment areas are fully understood; the public needs to understand General Plan changes will be reflected in the redevelopment plan; requested that the process include outreach beyond just notification, particularly on boundary changes and land acquisition. The Development Services Director stated in the past, people assumed everything is in sync after the General Plan was amended and were confused when the redevelopment plan also had to be revised. Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 2 October 3, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-10-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2006-10-17 | 20 | are done. The Transportation Commission Chair stated widening and lane changes are one of the reasons the Transportation Commission brought up the matter; continually, plans come forward to widen and change lanes. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether widening or lane changes are healthy, to which the Transportation Commission Chair responded the Commission felt that roads should not be widened. Mayor Johnson inquired whether existing roads were being addressed, to which the Transportation Commission Chair responded in the affirmative. The City Engineer stated that the Public Works Department disagrees with the Transportation Commission Chair; currently the General Plan discourages cut-through traffic, not cross-Island traffic; widening lanes is okay. Councilmember deHaan stated the issue seems very restrictive and the City should not be limited. The Transportation Commission Chair stated the Transportation Commission felt the issue was restrictive and wanted to bring the matter to Council before time was spent talking about the TMP . Mayor Johnson inquired whether the policy could be written to be flexible, to which the Transportation Commission Chair responded a flexible policy could be written but would be a continuation of what already exists. Councilmember deHaan stated he would want more interpretation on the impacts and how to narrow down the impacts; he would like to keep all roadways 25 miles per hour, which is the best policy; inquired whether a State policy addresses something different. Mayor Johnson inquired what the standards are called to set traffic speeds on Otis Drive, to which the Transportation Commission Chair responded 85th percentile. Mayor Johnson stated she does not have a problem with the 25 miles per hour speed limit; Otis Drive is a State highway; very few roads have speed limits higher than 25 miles per hour; the City does not need speed limits higher than 25 miles per hour; practically every Alameda Street is a neighborhood. Councilmember deHaan stated he would like to review some st… | CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2006-11-21 | 20 | be engaged is a concerning factor; inquired whether the Planning Board and EDC would be the appropriate forum. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated there is a City process for engaging the community the project proposer has their own outreach responsibility. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese amended the motion to include direction to have the developer work with the public within the process prior to bringing back an ENA. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the public process outlined is very preliminary because the ideas presented are conceptual; that he likes the idea of having public input on the preliminary aspect; encouraged work be done within a quick timeframe following NWSP adoption; encouraged additional public meetings also be held after the public input which would occur prior to the ENA. louncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated after the NWSP is approved there would be a measuring device that could be used and would help the applicant fine-tune his concept; the EDC should probably be the first stop because the EDC deals in conceptsi the Planning Board would be subsequenti there would be a chance for the public to visualize from concept to economics to hard planning issues and comment at least three to four times prior to the EBA coming back. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated that she would add encouraging the applicant to set up a meeting with the neighbors and neighborhood association regardless of the City's public process; sometimes neighbors cannot attend public meetings and the applicant could set up the most convenient time for the neighbors who would be the most directly affected by the development and the most well versed in the history of the site. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the motion should set forth minimum requirements, not maximum requirements because there might be some steps not being raised tonight the Council/Commission should not necessarily set a timeframe because pushing the project through is not the City's job. louncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the motion should add… | CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2006-12-05 | 20 | infrastructure. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog stated visual design issues need to be addressed by the Planning Board and community; the retail buildings parallel to the Webster Street Tube run the potential of being a plain wall; the new library has nice windows along Lincoln Avenue; inquired whether the DDA allows Council and the Planning Board flexibility to institute design features. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded Council is requested to amend the Master Plan; stated the Master Plan sets out design guidelines and conditions; Catellus must bring each development plan back to the Planning Board for approval; plans must be consistent with the Master Plan guidelines. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board would approve the guidelines. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the design guidelines are part of the Master Plan that was presented to the Planning Board and is before Council tonight. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether Council had the ability to go back and tweak the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program if the project is approved tonight. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded Bike Alameda requested a minor amendment to the Conditions of Approval for the Master Plan that would allow the Transportation Commission the ability to weigh in on the TDM; Catellus is comfortable with the modifications to the Conditions of Approval. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the report shows that Catellus would operate the water taxi shuttle on a one- year pilot basis; there is no criteria for deciding if, how, and when the shuttle would continue; questioned how the TDM's success would be measured; stated trip reduction goals have not been set; funding has been capped and would go to the water taxi mostly; inquired whether the maximum parking spaces are any different from the minimum parking spaces set for the Alameda Towne Center. The Supervising Planner re… | CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-02 | 20 | Vice Mayor Tam stated that she does not see a corresponding mitigation measure associated with a traffic impact that is tied to a dollar amount. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the TDM Program is one of the requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) ; stated the MMRP acknowledges the dollar amount; the components of the TDM Program are listed in general terms in the Conditions of Approval the budget is listed with a cap; the criteria for measuring the success is the one piece that does not exist currently; the goals are known and programs are in place to meet the goals. Vice Mayor Tam inquired how staff knows that $425,000 would achieve the goals. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded flexible opportunities exist to modify the budget stated there are provisions if the water taxi does not work; the water taxi can be de-funded and the money can be reallocated; it is uncertain whether the $425,000 will achieve all of the goals. Councilmember deHaan stated the Transportation Element was meant to precede the development element for the Alameda Point project; inquired how the language differs and whether language should be married. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the language is meant to be consistent with the day-one concept the Phase One TDM Program components have to be in place when there is a certificate of occupancy on the first 100,000 square feet of office space. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the TDM Program has been in place very long. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the City has a TDM Program ordinance stated a shuttle service runs out of the Harbor Bay Business Park; Grand Marina is coming to the Planning Board in a couple of weeks and will be required to participate in the TDM Program; Alameda Landing would feed the West End TDM Program; upcoming developments would pay into the program; funds would grow and Alameda Point would sign on to the West End TDM Program. Councilmember d… | CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 20 | The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2007-02-20 | 20 | fund. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated cost allocations reflect the cost of doing business; the General Fund or other departments would be subsidizing Golf operations if cost allocations were eliminated. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated costs are standard overhead costs that should be a burden against the activity; the Golf Commission was under the interpretation that the money was going to the General Fund and being used as discretionary which is not the case; the Commission needs to understand that the costs support operations. The Finance Director stated the general administrative services are a function found in any business; all operating departments need to share in the costs. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he did not want any confusion. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with direction to bring a resolution forward to mandate a balanced budget in the Golf Fund and to have a discussion on Reserve funds at the next budget cycle. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Council/Board/Commission requested that the resolution come back within 30 days; a balanced budget could be implemented sooner. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 10:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, 4 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission February 20, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-03-20.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2007-03-20 | 20 | ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:31 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 5 March 20, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-03-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2007-04-17 | 20 | would be difficult to do later, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative. Chair Johnson inquired whether other canopies could be added later, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Matarrese stated that he likes Alternative #1; inquired whether either alternative would have an effect on the ability to get a tree easement or put a vine trellis/mural on the northern wall. The Redevelopment Manager responded architecturally there would not be a problem. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether there would be a financial impact. The Redevelopment Manager responded the easement would have to be negotiated with Longs; stated that she does not know whether there would be financial implications. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether vines could be planted without obtaining an easement. The Redevelopment Manager responded external planters become a high maintenance issue because the plants tend to die. Commissioner Matarrese inquired what would be the option for making the northern side look decent. The Redevelopment Manager responded vines take five to seven years to grow; stated an alternative would be to architecturally retrofit the northern elevation in the future; additional funding would be required; another alternative would be to do a temporary vinyl mural : a mural could be placed on the three, middle bay windows to break up the façade and cover the slope. Chair Johnson stated hopefully more contingency money would become available and other options could be explored. Commissioner deHaan inquired why the marquee canopy price changed drastically. The Redevelopment Manager responded that she speculates the original bid was not correct; stated staff would negotiate to reduce the cost if the Commission decides to pursue the option. Commissioner deHaan stated the northern elevation treatment changed Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 2 April 17, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2007-05-15 | 20 | Chair Johnson inquired whether two action items are being considered tonight, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative Chair Johnson stated there would never be another opportunity to work on the entire ceiling; the work needs to be done; inquired whether 34% of the contingency budget would be used. The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Chair Johnson stated staff should come back to the Commission once there is a better idea of the amount of the contingency budget that will be used; money should not be left in the contingency budget ; money should be spent on additional theater restoration; people thought only the lobby would be restored and will be happy to see the extent of the restoration; further stated the historic theater is being restored as a one screen theater the screen will be one of the largest in the area. The Development Services Director stated the entire amount requested [$100,000 might not be used on the ceiling. Chair Johnson stated the maximum amount of work that can be done should be done while the scaffolding is up. The Development Services Director stated completing the entire ceiling should be around $80,000; keeping some of the historic paint features would cost lessi further stated money should be left in the contingency budget at the end of the project for tenant improvements in the retail spaces. Chair Johnson inquired whether holes in the ceiling would be repaired, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner deHaan stated that he was impressed with the art treatments that were uncovered; he would like to see the latest technology used on light fixtures; there will never be another opportunity to get back up in the ceiling a lot of electricity would be used for individual light sockets; the matter should be reviewed with Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) . The Development Services Director stated the matter could be reviewed very quickly; new technologies will adapt to old sockets; there is a… | CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-05 | 20 | being discussed for the USS Iowa. (07-276) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he heard rumors that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering moving its District office from Harbor Bay Business Park; requested an update; suggested that Council consider sending a request to maintain the District office and associated laboratories at Harbor Bay Business Park, if the rumor is true. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a letter has already been sent. The City Manager responded she would look into the matter. Councilmember deHaan stated that he thought a portion of the operation was next to Foster Freeze. Councilmember Matarrese stated the USFDA sampling lab and District Director office are at Harbor Bay Business Park. Mayor Johnson stated a letter should be sent right away; a resolution should be brought back to Council. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 June 5, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-19 | 20 | Mayor Johnson requested an overview on the $50,000 line item [10% Alameda Museum rent subsidy cut] The City Manager gave a brief overview. Mayor Johnson inquired whether $41,000 would be set-aside for the Museum this year and $50,000 would be available for cultural organizations next year. The City Manager responded $50,000 would be available for cultural organizations every year, but the bulk would be dedicated to the Alameda Museum. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council would determine how the $50,000 would be allocated. The City Manager responded the recommendation is that a portion of the $50,000 goes to the Alameda Museum. Mayor Johnson stated that she recalls that the City started paying Museum rent in 1999, not 19911 the allocation was an emergency issue because the Museum was facing potential loss of the facility. The City Manager stated records are incomplete; 1991 was when the Museum moved to the Masonic Building. Diane Coler-Dark, Alameda Museum, stated problems existed with funding and the Museum; all conditions were met on the Court order; Council reinstated the funding that was temporarily withheld for six months; a minor rent increase occurred and Council agreed to meet the rent increase. Robbie Dileo, Alameda Museum, stated the Museum was evicted from a 100-year lease and moved from Oak Street the Museum moved to the Masonic Building funding was suspended for six months and reinstated; a rent increase occurred in 2001; now the Museum is faced with a rent increase. Vice Mayor Tam stated records indicate that Council authorized funding in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 for $38,400; amounts under $75,000 are within the City Manager's authority; inquired whether Council made an appropriation for the Museum since 1999. Ms. Dileo responded the Museum has not had to come to Council every two years to request the rent subsidy. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 9 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 19, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2007-07-17 | 20 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -JULY 17, 2007- - -6:30 p.m. Vice Mayor Tam convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Tam - 4. Absent : Mayor Johnson - 1. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (07-338 - ) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95) ; Claimant Jerry Manis. ; Agency Claimed Against : City of Alameda. (07-339) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director. Employee Organizations : All City Bargaining Units. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Vice Mayor Tam announced that regarding Workers' Compensation Claim, Council received a briefing regarding the status of a Workers' Compensation claim and provided direction regarding settlement; regarding Labor, Council received a briefing on the status of labor negotiations with various City bargaining units. Adjournment There being no further business, Vice Mayor Tam adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council July 17, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2007-08-07 | 20 | cents per hour Attachment 14 shows that the parking rate would be fifty cents per hour, and that the hourly charge would be kept current by reasonable adjustments for inflation, but with minimum adjustments in twenty-five cent increments inquired whether opportunities would be available to review the parking rates beyond the period stipulated in the DDA. The Development Services Director responded the referenced attachment stipulates the operating parameters in the first couple of years of operation; stated rates could be adjusted. Commissioner Tam inquired whether there is any frequency limitation [to rate increases], to which the Development Services Director responded in the negative. Commissioner Tam stated that Table 1 shows a net balance of $255,281, which escalates to $1,200,803 in 2027; occupancy is estimated at 45% to 50%; inquired whether said estimate would provide enough reserve funding; further inquired whether shortfalls exist; stated the existing parking revenue is subsidizing the garage; inquired whether the existing parking meter revenue is Citywide. The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. stated predominate collections are in the Park Street business area where there are more meters. the City would determine how to make payments in the future; the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) funds enter the cash flow in 2007 through 2009; different revenue sources come into the cash flow four to five years later; restructuring opportunities would be available; currently, a conservative approach is being taken where the debt service payment would have a coverage of $1.25 million plus the fund balance; the debt could be covered by using the fund balance at a ratio of 2.0. Commissioner deHaan stated the parking meter revenue was mandated to help establish additional parking by ordinance; inquired what is the gross parking meter revenue. The Finance Director responded approximately $500,000 per year. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether any overhead is taken from the $5… | CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2007-09-11 | 20 | Demographics: Year Household Moved to Current Home 20,000 2000 or later 15,000 1990 to 1999 10,000 1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979 5,000 1969 or earlier 0 Year Moved In Source: 2005 American Community Survey 9 Demographics: Homeownership in Alameda 60% 48% 44% 40% 20% 8% 0% Ow ner-occupied Renter-occupied Vacant Source: 2005 American Community Survey 10 5 | CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-06 | 20 | has proven that more is needed. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the combination of the housing units and office space bumps up the need to .75 parking spaces per unit as opposed to . 6. The Housing Authority Executive Director responded the additional parking would provide for less than .75 parking spaces per unit. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether some consideration was given to improving access from the housing units to the bus stops stated bus stops are gated off; further inquired whether efforts were made to improve access to public transit in lieu of providing more vehicle access. The Housing Authority Executive Director responded that he is not sure whether there was a discussion about bus stop accessi stated fences are in place for security purposes; the complex has gates in the back, side, and front. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether seniors have easy access to and from the bus stops. The Housing Authority Executive Director responded seniors have to walk farther to the bus stop at the corner of Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue; stated seniors would need to walk through the parking lot if there was a gate; there is no room for sidewalks; another bus stop at the front of the office is accessible. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether consideration was given to the issue in 2005. The Housing Authority Executive Director responded that he does not recall any discussion regarding adding gates in order to improve access to bus stops. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether consideration was given to relocating bus stops or providing easier access to transit. The Housing Authority Executive Director responded in the negative; stated automobiles and parking are being discussed, not buses. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the assumption that senior housing requires less parking is not accurate. The Housing Authority Executive Director stated Seniors are more Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Housing 2 Authority Board of Commissioners November 6, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-20 | 20 | information would be provided as part of a facilities master plan. The Assistant City Manager stated said plan is extensive and would not be ready for nine months or so; staff could work on a smaller version of the plan. Councilmember deHaan stated the primary focus is to centralize operations and downsize the footprint at Alameda Point. The Assistant City Manager stated staff could review the matter to see what it would take to relocate the uses in Building One at Alameda Point. Councilmember Gilmore suggested that the matter be placed on an agenda for further discussion. (07-559) Councilmember deHaan stated he would like to have the issue of placing liquor and smoking ads within certain distance of schools brought to Council for discussion. The City Attorney stated that the legal opinion states that Council has no control over the matter. ADJOURNMENT - City Council There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 11:10 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 20 November 20, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2007-12-04 | 20 | (07-055A CIC) Resolution 07-151, "Approving a First Addendum to the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Authorizing the Executive Director to Amend the Disposition and Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project) with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation. " Adopted ; and (07-574B CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement Amendment DA-06-0003 to the Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project) By and Between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation, dated January 16, 2007. Introduced. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager provided a Power Point presentation. Dan Bucko with SMWM provided a brief presentation on wharf redesign. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager provided a brief summary of the proposed modifications to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) . Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether utility lines would be above ground going to Clif Bar and restaurants. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the existing 115 kV line would be relocated into the Mitchell Avenue right-of-way; stated Catellus would perform the trenching and install the conduit necessary for the ultimate undergrounding; the 115kV line starts at the High Street Bridge, runs the entire length of the City's waterfront, and terminates at Pacific Avenue and Main Street adjacent to Alameda Point. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the estimated insurance cost. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the cost has not been calculated; stated the idea is to obtain insurance if available at commercially reasonable rates. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired what would be a commercially reasonable rate, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded that she would provide the information Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated the Alameda Landing tax Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council… | CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2008-01-15 | 20 | revisit the Otis Drive bus stop. Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Gilmore; stated staff would bring the matter back to Council options need to be weighed. Councilmember deHaan noted $50,000 is available [for bus stop improvements) The City Manager stated a different appropriation would be needed for additional funds; other projects would be impacted. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff would be able to apply for bus stop improvement grants, to which the Supervising Civil Engineer responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated the bus line is Alameda's line and is a priority; Council acted responsibly tonight an unfunded mandate was not given; issues were resolved regarding better run times; a policy decision has been made to forestall stops on Otis Drive; concerns have been voiced regarding traffic conditions at Lum School; Otis Drive is a very fast area and is unsafe to cross; he hopes that Council can give direction to take the next step at looking at the intersection, particularly at Lum School ; other projects can be reviewed on a priority basis. The Supervising Civil Engineer stated that staff is going through a Transportation Master Plan review process and is developing a Citywide commuter model that will help give some idea of the impacts. Mayor Johnson thanked AC Transit representatives for attending the meeting. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates the time and effort expended by AC Transit. * * * (08 - 031) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past 12:00 midnight. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (08-032) Resolution No. 14180, "Authorizing Implementation of Parking Restrictions at Bus Stops on State Route 61 to Provide Curbside Access for Buses. " Adopted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 January 15, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2008-02-19 | 20 | Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner deHaan stated costs go upi using reserves for deferred maintenance is important; pension and severance pay is another issue. The Finance Director stated that employees are entitled to accrued vacation payout upon retirement; the amount can be substantial; vacation payout amounted to $200,000 this fiscal year. In response to Councilmember/Boar Member/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding operational savings, the Finance Director stated there is a savings of approximately $1.5 in Capital Improvement Projects and $1.5 in operating expenditures. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he does not see any upswing or leveling at the end of 2009; the City of Vallejo is considering bankruptcy and is the first city in California to consider such a thing; stated today's phenomenon is different from 2003. The Finance Director stated the 2003 phenomenon was industry driven, today's is home sale driven; plans need to be made for a very thoughtful and strategic 2009 budget. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore thanked staff for the presentation; stated best efforts have been made in forecasting the unknown; the State's budget has not passed and may not pass until fall; what is known now may change dramatically because the City is dependent on what the State does to balance its budget. The Finance Director stated one more chance to input new information will be available when the Governor presents the May revise; the City could feel a little more home free if a fiscal emergency is not declared. The City Manager/Executive Director stated the City constantly receives feedback from the League of California Cities; information will be received before the May revise. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired what projects are not being done because funds are being shifted to close the $5 million gap, to which the Finance Director responded different banks are being used; Proposition 1B money would be used for the Pavement Management Plan rather … | CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2008-03-18 | 20 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- -MARCH 18, 2008- - -6:01 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (08-113 - CC/08-14 - CIC) 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/Chair Johnson announced that Council/Commission received a briefing from Legal Counsel on a matter of potential litigation; no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:40 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 March 18, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-04-15.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2008-04-15 | 20 | Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 20 Community Improvement Commission April 15, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-04-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2008-05-06 | 20 | attended the April 28 luncheon for Breathe California; Alameda Power and Telecom received an award for achieving approximately 70% renewable resources. (08-206) Councilmember Gilmore stated that she attended the Oakland Airport Community Noise Management Forum on April 16; the community watchdog group works very hard with the Port of Oakland, and specifically the airport, to track flight compliance procedures over Alameda, San Leandro, and the rest of the East Bay; a Federal Express pilot gave a presentation regarding the current number of old, noisy airplanes and when said planes would be disposed. (08-207) Mayor Johnson stated that she attended the Northern California Power Agency Legislative Advocacy Conference; Alameda should be very proud of receiving the Breathe California award; Senator Feinstein's or Senator Boxer's office inquired about a proposal to have environmental block grants distributed directly to cities a letter should be sent supporting the proposal because the grants would help with environmental sustainability initiatives; the issue was discussed at the Mayor's Conference. The Deputy City Manager stated a $2 billion authorization passed approximately a year ago; currently, work is being done on appropriations of said funds. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 11:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting 20 Alameda City Council May 6, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2008-06-03 | 20 | Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that he is concerned with the timeframe; inquired whether the Clif Bar parcel is pushed into Phase 2 now. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded all of the office property would be in Phase 31 stated an early office parcel could be the first or second parcel developed. louncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there is any likelihood of keeping the original deadlines, especially retail. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (PAC) requested that certain timeframes be extended for the performance milestones due to early expenditure of funds. louncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired how close the retail project would be to the original timeframes. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded PAC'S immediate timeframe is a year and a half from now; stated PAC would need to commence with an alternative Phase 1; PAC has another five and a half years to commence on the retail. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would happen if the Stargell Avenue Extension Project is not constructed. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded PAC would not have any time extensions; stated everything would go back to the original DDA timeframe. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the most important aspect is obtaining the right-of-way i the stars have lined up and will not line up again; funds would be allocated to the project and would go towards covering upfront reimbursements for acquiring the right-of-way if the developer pulls out or the City terminates the Agreement. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion with the caveat that the project has a rigid timeframe. Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore requested more detail on the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public 6 Financing Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting June 3, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2008-06-17 | 20 | (08-277E CC) Resolution No. 14226, "Establishing Guidelines for Reimbursement of Per Diem Allowance for City of Alameda Business Travel. " Adopted. The City Manager/Executive Director provided a handout on issue bin items from previous workshops and gave a brief presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what is the cost for a Park Director, to which the City Manager responded $25,000 per year. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether $25,000 would fully restore Park Directors at sites without reducing hours, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated direction should be given to not reduce Park Director hours; inquired how much it would cost to light tennis courts, to which the Recreation and Park Director responded $7,500. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated efforts should be made to find money to light the two tennis courts. Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how long it would take to go through the $300,000 restored to the Fire Department overtime budget. The Fire Chief responded the current overtime usage is averaging four people per day which costs $6,000 per day for a twenty-four hour shift. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired how long it would take to implement rotating a truck out of service. The Fire Chief responded early July; stated operationally, the Fire Department could be ready within four to six weeks; the meet and confer process would take longer. louncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated adding $300,000 would still leave a $520,000 shortage inquired how the $520,000 would be absorbed in the budget. The City Manager/Executive Director responded overtime would still need to be managed stated the $520,000 would not be restored back into the budget. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated an engine replacement plan should be Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 10 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2008-07-01 | 20 | The City Manager stated the proposal was to issue a RFP for a management and maintenance interim operator and issue a RFP for a long-term operator. Mayor Johnson stated that she is okay with someone providing a proposal to do management and leaving maintenance staff in place. The Interim General Manager stated in response to Ms. Sullwold's statement [the Golf Commission has not been given any information on interim management options) he does not have any definite numbers yet; hard numbers would not be known until a RFP is issued. The City Manager stated that the General Manager and Golf Services Manager positions are unfunded; approximately 30% of the Recreation and Park Director's salary is allocated to Golf. Councilmember Gilmore requested that the motion be restated. Councilmember deHaan stated that he stands corrected on the interim operator the interim operator would be for both operations and maintenance; then the next step would be to look at the long-term; the stop gap effort would be just to keep the Course going while looking at the overall long-term and capital investment needed to continue on. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she does not want an interim operator to assume that they would be the long-term operator. The Interim General Manager stated interested interim operators have stated that they do not want to be precluded from being the long-term operator but understand that they might not be. Councilmember deHaan inquired how much the RFP would cost, to which the Interim General Manager responded $20,000. Councilmember deHaan stated the motion is to move approval of issuing a RFP for an interim operator for management and operation and that said operator could be considered as the long-term operator. Mayor Johnson stated the motion should include that community engagement would be the next phase. Councilmember deHaan stated community engagement would include how excess land should be used if the Mif Albright Course is mothballed. Councilmember Gilmore requested that the motion be approval of R… | CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2008-07-15 | 20 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - -JULY 15, 2008- -7:31 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Community Improvement Commission Meeting at 11:11 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. MINUTES (08-37) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on June 17, 2008. Approved. Commissioner Tam moved approved of the minutes. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. . AGENDA ITEMS (08-38) - Public Hearing to consider the Periodic Review of the City of Alameda's Alameda Point Improvement Project Five-Year Implementation Plan. The Development Services Manager gave a brief presentation. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether any comments were received from the Economic Development Commission (EDC). The Development Services Manager responded no specific comments were received; stated the EDC appreciated being kept up to date. The Development Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation. Commissioner Tam stated the staff report notes that SunCal would be updating the Sports Complex Master Plan in September; inquired whether the Master Plan would be previewed at the August workshop, to which the Development Services Director responded in the negative. The Assistant City Manager stated SunCal would be having meetings with the Youth Commission and Recreation and Park Commission in August. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 1 July 15, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-08-05.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2008-08-05 | 20 | provide affordable housing homeownership opportunities, which would be accomplished by including ten units at the Grand Marina development; 2) allowing the Island High site to be developed into affordable housing for teachers and AUSD employees, which is a worthwhile project that needs to be included in the North of Lincoln Street plan; there needs to be a discussion about the most effective way to provide affordable housing, which might include condominium conversions; that he would like the Island High project to be separate and follow its own processi that he would like to move the Warmington project forward. louncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of adopting an Affordable Housing Agreement which includes the ten units on site as inclusionary as was defined in the site plan. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the motion is that all affordable and moderate units remain on the [Grand Marina] site, to which Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam stated one neighborhood's requirements should not be shifted to another neighborhood; other developers would begin to make the same request if the City started allowing affordable unit to be built off site; State MHP funds are available for rental units; inquired whether the Warmington project could subsidize five rental units on the Grand Marina site without using MHP funds. The Development Services Director responded that she could not unequivocally state that the funds could not be used; stated the parameters to qualify for MHP funds are that there be an on-site manager and that the project meets certain conditions competitively, the projects have to rank against other projects across the State; nobody has seen success with small projects; other requirements with MHP funds and tax credits are amenities, such as community centers and computers. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the Developer could turn units into re… | CityCouncil/2008-08-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2008-08-19 | 20 | ensure that D.E. Shaw and SunCal would be committed to each other for the duration of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) ; a commitment has been made on behalf of the community; a lot of momentum has been generated; the process has been open and straight forward; she supports directing staff to ensure that the ENA reflects the City's commitment to have SunCal selected as the Master Developer and to ensure that the timeline in the term sheet between D.E. Shaw and SunCal comports with the timeline expected for the planning process with SunCal. Councilmember/Board Member/Commission Matarrese stated that he wants to ensure that the City would have the ability to terminate the ENA if SunCal was removed from the position of Master Developer; D.E. Shaw would be a financial partner, not the developer ; the timeline should be kept the same; direction should be provided to the City Manager/Executive Director to negotiate the amendments to the ENA. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan requested background information on the timeline. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated currently, the ENA has a twenty-four month term; the City is thirteen months into the term; the ENA expires July 19, 2009; the ENA has a provision for progress expansion and mutual extension; the ENA allows for an automatic progress expansion if the project moves forward; a mutual extension could be granted for up to twelve months if there are third party entities. when the ENA was initially approved, requirements were not in place mandating that a conveyance term sheet be completed within nine months from the effective date of legislation; legislation may be approved next month or may not be approved until March, 2009. SunCal has a land plan that would require approval by initiative, which is not a timeframe that is consistent with the July 2009 expiration. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what the ballot measure would be. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded SunCal revealed a … | CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2008-09-16 | 20 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - SEPTEMBER 16, 2008- -6:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (08-382 - ) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957) ; Title: City Manager. (08-383) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9 i Name of case Collins V. City of Alameda. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee, Council and the City Manager met for a periodic performance review; no action was taken; regarding Existing Litigation, Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel regarding the status of litigation and potential settlement discussions and gave direction to Legal Counsel. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:55 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 September 16, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2008-10-07 | 20 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA, , AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 7, 2008 - -7:27 P. M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:02 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Counci ilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. MINUTES (08-51 CIC) Minutes of Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on September 16, 2008. Approved. Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEMS (08-52 CIC) Recommendation to accept and endorse the Park Street north of Lincoln Avenue Strategic Plan. The Development Services Manager gave a brief presentation. Ian Ross, The City Design Collective, gave a Power Point presentation. Vice Mayor Tam stated the form based concepts are innovative; Council has discussed CalTrans' plans regarding Highway 880 and the potential closing of Glascock Avenue because of Union Pacific's plans inquired whether there has been any outreach to understand how said issues would factor into the Strategic Plan. Mr. Ross responded that he is not aware of any additional outreach with CalTrans. Vice Mayor Tam stated Mr. Ross mentioned that auto servicing businesses would continue even without auto dealerships because there is sufficient customer base. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 1 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting October 7, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2008-10-21 | 20 | mutual aid; the City should not provide backup for AMR, a private company; taxpayers should not support AMR; the County should receive a $1 million bill for the service. The City Manager stated staff would follow up; the City made changes to avoid the situation in the future. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the bill should be sent for past mutual aid. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the $1 million sales tax overpayment and $1 million bill from the County are outstanding, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired the likelihood of the City prevailing on the outstanding County bill. The City Attorney responded the City is in good shape; stated the amount relates to an expired Contract that the City has been trying to negotiate; the county refunded the City when the Contract has expired in the past. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner inquired how outstanding amounts are captured on the balance sheet. The Interim Finance Director responded the amount is captured as a liability at the time the process is concluded and the amount is real. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan requested a breakdown of the $6 million in IOUs [owed to the General Fund]. The Interim Finance Director stated the three large amounts are $2.2 million from Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) , $2.4 million from Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T), and $1.2 million from Alameda Point. In response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding repayment of the $6 million loaned out from the General Fund, the Interim Finance Director stated the principle is not being retired; ARRA is paying interest only, which is booked as $130,000 in General Fund revenue. Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there is a funding mechanism for repayment. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 3 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 21, 2… | CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-12-02.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2008-12-02 | 20 | Mayor Johnson stated policies should be categorized on the website. The City Clerk stated that she has been working with the Information Technology Department on the matter. (08-521) Discussion and direction regarding the proposed soft story ordinance and schedule for implementation. The Building Official gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember deHaan inquired why Council is receiving a report since the item is a Council Referral. The City Manager responded the item is for general review; stated a public session is scheduled for January; no decision is required. Mayor Johnson stated the matter is a significant safety issue that needs to move forward. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the Alameda Point hangers are considered soft story structures. The Building Official responded in the negative; stated the hangers are steel structures. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she does not think the hangers have enough sheer walls. The Building Official stated part of the process is identifying and defining what a soft story building is for Alameda the real hazard is to residential buildings. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have information on what other cities have done and when, and how Alameda rates. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there has been outreach to realtors. The Building Official responded the original outreach was a public workshop ; stated additional outreach would be done with realtors before the next workshop. Councilmember Gilmore suggested outreach to the Rental Property Owners Association. Regular Meeting 20 Alameda City Council December 2, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-12-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2009-01-06 | 20 | Counci lmember Tam stated the City is not insulated from the State running out of money; the $413,000 might not materialize. The Interim Finance Director stated the City is assuming the amount will be received by close of books on June 30, but might have to float the cash; monies paid with an I.O.U. drain the City's cash today. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City was under the impression that it could bond against the I.O.U., which will no longer happen. The Interim Finance Director stated some of the smaller revenue sources are being held and the State is not indicating when payment will be received. Councilmember Tam stated the City of Hayward is eliminating days of operation; Oakland is furloughing; inquired what other cities are doing to maintain public safety. The Interim Finance Director stated Hayward is requiring every employee, except frontline Police and Fire, to take a mandated 52 hours of unpaid leave; people could draw down on the time while the City closed for the holidays; the City Manager has requested her to run various scenarios. The City Manager stated in Hayward, the amount would be taken out of paychecks over a six-month period and was a one-time effort to obtain savings in the current fiscal year. Vice Mayor deHaan stated furloughs are being done at various levels throughout the State; the City might be in a situation and have to close City Hall down on a given day; there are a lot of options. The City Manager noted there would be a decrease in service. Mayor Johnson stated the mid-year budget report would be brought to Council in February and the issue would be dealt with again. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (09-017) Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs for Community Block Grant Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Annual Plan. Continued to January 20, 2009. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON-AGENDA ( (09-018) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed energy. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 January 6, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2009-02-03 | 20 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 3, 2009- - -6:00 p.m. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (09-039) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City Manager. (09-040) Conference with Labor Negotiator (54957.6) ; Agency Negotiator: Council Subcommittee to be determined; Name City Manager Employment Agreement. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee, Council gave direction to the Council Subcommittee of the Mayor and Vice Mayor no other action was taken; regarding Labor, Council continued the item; no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council February 3, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2009-02-07 | 20 | Councilmember Gilmore stated there seems to be a structural problem; departments have not been adequately charged, which has built up the deficit over the years; a formula based on a certain percent does not work; the amount needs to be recalculated every year. The Interim Finance Director stated the amount is personalized based on the fund users, which needs to be revisited every year. Councilmember Gilmore stated workers' compensation has a negative balance over $2 million; inquired where money would come from if there were a new $1 million charge. The Interim Finance Director responded the claim is charged to the workers' compensation ISF; stated the City has money in cash; negative funds are not netted out at the end of every year if the negative amounts were zeroed out , the amount would be a hit against the fund responsible for the claim; if the claim were for a General Fund department, the amount would come from the General Fund; the vast majority of the departments with claims are General Fund departments. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the amount comes from the [General Fund reserve. The Interim Finance Director responded the amount would [come from the General Fund reserve] if not recovered from the department. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the $2.6 million deficit is measured against the fund balance; and whether the $8 million in cash indicated in the budget document, accounts for the $2.6 million or if the amount still needs to be subtracted out. The Interim Finance Director responded the latter the amount still needs to be subtracted out]. Councilmember Matarrese stated a policy is needed that prohibits the ISF rolling deficit; ISF need to be zeroed out right now. Councilmember Gilmore stated the unrestricted General Fund cash reserves are not truly the amount listed the budget document should reflect the true unrestricted cash number. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is a break down of the $2.046 million deficit; and whether the intent is to assign amount to departments. Special Meetin… | CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2009-03-03 | 20 | The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager gave a brief presentation. *** (09-10) - Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight. Mayor Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote - Ayes : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4: Noes Commissioner Tam - 1. Tom Marshall, Catellus Managing Director, gave a brief update. Commissioner deHaan stated seeing Target in the mix is nice; that he is fearful of a stand-alone project; surrounding businesses would be cookie cutter in nature. Mr. Marshall stated just having a Target makes no economic sense; Target is an important component to the project; a collective decision needs to be made regarding moving forward with Target or do nothing at all. Commissioner deHaan inquired what safe guards are in place to ensure a necessary level of development. Mr. Marshall responded the site plan is an old site plan that has Target laid out with the rest of the center; stated the rest of the center is in jeopardy, which is a temporary situation. The Assistant City Manager stated whatever is built would still need to comply with the Site Plan; the Disposition and Development Agreement has timelines; default would occur if development did not occur within the timelines and the project would be taken back and remarketed to a different developer; a market cannot be guaranteed. Commissioner deHaan stated check off points need to be met; retail types need to be reviewed; focus cannot be lost. Mr. Marshall stated tenant enthusiasm has cut back within the last nine months; having a Target partially pays for the Webster Street/Wilver "Willie" Stargell Project. Commissioner deHaan stated check off points need to be met; that he does not want to have Target surrounded by tumbleweeds. Commissioner Matarrese concurred with Commissioner deHaan; Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 2 March 3, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2009-03-17 | 20 | Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired where the money came from, to which the Interim Finance Director responded the money accumulated over time. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired what are the funding projections for the next five years. The Public Works Director responded existing projects would continue without needing to access any of the money that would be part of the loan; stated staff is currently embarking on a Sewer Master Plan to identify a twenty-year capital improvement project plan which would indicate whether property tax fees should remain the same or change. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether some of the funding would be used for Alameda Point infrastructure. The Public Works Director responded typically, developers pay improvement costs. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the funding stream if Catellus does not move forward. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the CIC would be the promissory note holder; stated funding could come from tax increment, bonds, or lease revenues from Alameda Reuse and tedevelopment Authority (ARRA) or Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) . Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired how other tax increment projects would be impacted. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded staff would start budgeting for the loan repayment ; stated other redevelopment projects may have to be postponed. Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated the staff report notes that the $2.2 million pro rata share would be triggered within 120 days of Catellus finalizing a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Target ; inquired whether getting some type of entitlement before the $2.2 pro-rata share moves into City funds is not necessary, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated other revenue sources are listed in addition to the Sewer Fund; there has been an on-going Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 3 Community Improvement Commiss… | CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2009-05-19 | 20 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY- - -MAY 19, 2009- -7:27 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 7:46 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ] (*09-18 CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on April 7, 2009, and the Special Joint City Council/Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority/Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on April 14, 2009. Approved. (*09-193 CC) Resolution No. 14328, "Approving and Adopting the Report to the City Council on the Proposed Amendments to the Community Improvement Plans for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and the West End Community Improvement Project, Submitting the Report and Proposed Amendments to the City Council, and Consenting to and Requesting the City Council to Call a Joint Public Hearing on the Proposed Amendments. Adopted; and ( *09-019 CIC) Resolution No. 09-195, "Consenting to and Calling Joint Public Hearings on the Proposed Amendments to the Community Improvement Plans for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and the West End Community Improvement Project. " Adopted. AGENDA ITEMS None. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 20 Community Improvement Commission May 19, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2009-06-02 | 20 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -JUNE 2, 2009- - -6:30 P. .M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (09-214) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9) i Name of Case: Ottaviano V. City of Alameda. (09-215) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.91 Number of cases One. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Existing Litigation, Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel and provided litigation direction; regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel and provided direction. 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 June 2, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-06-16.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2009-06-16 | 20 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -JUNE 16, 2009- -7:31 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 9:45 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. AGENDA (09-263) - Resolution No. 14357, "Authorizing the City Attorney to Cooperate with the League of California Cities, Other Cities and Counties in Litigation Challenging the Constitutionality of Any Seizure by State Government of the City's Street Maintenance Funds. Adopted. The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Matarrese suggested information be posted on the website. In response to buncilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Development Services Director stated redevelopment fund reductions could increase to $2.7 million to $2.8 million. The Deputy City Manager stated the County is considering reducing or stopping operation of the estuary bridges if the gas tax cut occurs. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a strategy is planned to keep the bridges operating. The Interim City Manager responded a contingency plan is not in place; stated that she does not know how the City would keep the bridges open. The Deputy City Manager stated opening the bridges after 8:00 p.m. as been suggested as a compromise. The Interim City Manager stated closing the bridges is highly unlikely and could be a trial balloon with expectations of sharing maintenance costs. Special Meeting Alameda City Council June 16, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-06-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2009-08-03 | 20 | references to ARRA means the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is federal stimulus money, and not the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether federal money is coming to Alameda, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the public should know about the funding information should be posted on the website. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Appezzato Parkway parking strip and Alameda Beltline landscaping are budgeted. The Public Works Director responded currently, funding has not been allocated; stated the current General Plan requires the Alameda Point developer to build a multi-modal facility; the current ballot initiative removes the requirement. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. louncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese complimented the Interim City Manager on the report's clarity. Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore thanked the Interim City Manager for the new format ; stated the public will be more informed on how the City is spending money. Mayor/Chair Johnson concurred with Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore; stated everyone worked very hard on the budget. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan stated seeing the final product is nice; the budget is more understandable; a department staffing summary is the only thing missing. The Interim City Manager stated a summary would be provided. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2009-10-20 | 20 | Speaker : Harry Hartman, Greater Alameda Business Association. Commissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation. Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*09-41 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive Director to Enter into a Contract in the Amount of $96,089 with the West Alameda Business Association for Fiscal Year 2009-2010. Accepted. (*09-42 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive Director to enter into a Contract in the Amount of $105,874 with the Park Street Business Association for Fiscal Year 2009-2010. Accepted. (09-43 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive Director to Enter into a Contract in the Amount of $40,000 with the Alameda Chamber of Commerce for Fiscal Year 2009-2010. The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation. Commissioner Tam inquired what the Chamber is doing differently than the business associations other than magazine ads. The Economic Development Director responded the Chamber is often the first place people contact for information regarding places to stay, restaurants, etc; stated the City has not supported the Chamber, which is unusual; the City has benefited from the Chamber ; businesses believe there is a big advantage to being linked to other business associations; staff would review progress. Commissioner Tam stated the Park Street Business Association ads highlight Alameda, not the Association; hopefully, capacity building would occur and duplication would not take place. Speakers : Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) ; Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce. Following Mr. Ratto's comments, Commissioner deHaan stated the League of California Cities has discussed California travel and tourism; individual cities are marketing themselves extremely well. Chair Johnson stated perhaps placing advertising money in a pool Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20,… | CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2009-11-03 | 20 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 3, 2009- - -6:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (09-427) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation 54956.9 (b) ; Number of cases: One. (09-428) Conference with Labor Negotiators ; Agency negotiators: Karen Willis and Craig Jory; Employee organizations : All Bargaining Units. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel on a mater of anticipated litigation and provided direction to Legal Counsel; regarding Labor, the matter was not heard. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council November 3, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2009-11-17 | 20 | Councilmember Matarrese stated that sunshine ordinance move forward and he go would like to see a through the Community Task Force route. Councilmember Tam stated that she concurs that the matter should go through a Community Task Force effort rather than spending time second guessing whether a lobby registry would be needed as part of a ordinance; the matter may not be a priority for the community; the community may see a bigger focus on trying to improve the rating on accessibility of the Public Records Act; hopefully, the issue will be more community driven, rather than staff driven. Mayor Johnson stated Council should decide on components regardless of whether the issue is community or staff driven; the lobbying registry is something that would be very valuable to the entire community. Councilmember Gilmore stated the Planning Board has tackled the noticing guidelines on more than one occasion; the radius changes depending upon the type of project; staff should start where the Planning Board left off; the Planning Board has an email interest list for large community interest projects; that she does not know whether there is some mechanism to notice people by email; email notification would cut down on costs. Vice Mayor deHaan stated some issues noted in the staff report could be extracted; better understanding what the public needs would be a good idea. Mayor Johnson stated Council could provide input to staff; staff could develop a draft and then workshops could be held; having a Task Force start at the very beginning is very time consuming ; that she would like to include campaign contribution limits, ethic and confidential information components, including compliance with the Brown Act, and requirements for Councilmembers Board Members, and Commissioners to comply with the Charter. Councilmember Matarrese stated a Task Force would not bog down the processi the framework has already been completed; not having an end date bogs the process down. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she concurs with Councilmember… | CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2010-02-16 | 20 | Alameda Requesting Modification to Certain Terms Including Extending the Term of the ENA to July 20, 2012; and (2) Retract the Notice of Default Sent by Alameda regarding SunCal's Performance under the ENA. The Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director provided a brief presentation. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what was outlined in the letter of retraction regarding the Notice of Default, to which the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director responded the letter includes that SunCal's intent is to pursue further discussions with the City; clarification will have to be obtained in a meeting scheduled with SunCal for Thursday. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the date of said letter, to which the Deputy City Manager responded February 12. In response to Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's further inquiry, the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated a January letter requested an ENA extension; once the Notice of Default was issued, a letter [e-mail] was sent asking the Mayor and City Council to override the administrative decision, which is under the Council's authority; said letter was sent last week [February 8]; then, a few days later, Friday afternoon [February 12], SunCal sent a second letter dealing with the Notice of Default stating that they [SunCal] were withdrawing their request to have Council override the Notice of Default subject to further discussions with the City. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the letters were sent within one week, to which the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated it was all within a short time. In response to Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry about whether there has been any dialogue [with SunCal], the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated there will be an opportunity through ENA discussions this week and next week to get further clarification as to what SunCal meant. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaa… | CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2010-03-16 | 20 | Councilmember Matarrese stated there are two offers on the table; one group is offering to raise money to operate a par 3 course; that he does not care where the par 3 course is as long as there is one; a lot of money needs to be raised to continue to have low green fees; having conversations with both groups is important because one is feeding Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 March 16, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2010-04-06 | 20 | B] Specific Plan; the details of the plan are so important at this stage; there are only a couple of months to put the project together, which is a concern. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff would review the comparison [submitted by Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan]. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated there has been a lot of discussion around the issue of transparency and disclosure; sharing information in a public forum is not necessarily standard operating practice; the Alameda Point project is not normal for Alameda; the City is trying to come up with the mechanism and type of reporting out that can be done regularly [at City Council meetings] every two weeks; stated that she would read a letter that she would send tomorrow as a follow up to Frank Faye's presentation on March 16. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the offer constitutes a proposed change to the current ENA; stated that he believes the Council voted on whether SunCal was willing to change the restrictions in the ENA regarding what is proprietary; nothing is different unless a modified ENA is presented to Council. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the letter asks for additional clarification to provide the City with a clear understanding of what SunCal is willing to release; stated [Mr. Faye's] comments last time in the public forum indicated that SunCal wants to release information, but has caveats regarding proprietary information in terms of competition, which is a legitimate request; there are still questions about pro forma information; the pro forma includes a proprietary model; more information is needed in order to proceed with an amendment to the ENA; submitted and read the letter for the record; stated the last paragraph focuses on discussions regarding documenting predevelopment costs; the City is following up in writing on other requests, which are more complicated and comprehensive than just the details between D.E. Shaw and SunCa… | CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2010-04-20 | 20 | (10-18 CIC) 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, Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor, the matter was continued; regarding Alameda Point, Board Members received a briefing from its real property negotiator and provided negotiating direction; regarding CIC Anticipated Litigation, the Commissioners received a briefing from Legal Counsel and staff regarding the matter and provided direction. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:25 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 2 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 20, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2010-05-04 | 20 | application is anticipated [in the near future]. The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded in the negative; stated provisions in the application require very detailed information that does not correspond to the planning effort and would require too much time and expense to finalize at this time. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the face value of Measure B and the density bonus option look very much the same. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the $22 million for schools has been discussed with the School District, to which the Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded SunCal has reached out to the School District but has not had any subsequent meetings. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the School District has advised her that SunCal has reached out but has not done anything else. The Interim City Manager stated the pro forma negotiations just include the impact fee number and do not include the larger number for capital; staff is just starting to get into more detailed numbers. The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated the number has not been approved or confirmed by the School District. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated everything needs to pencil out at the end of the process. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated economic advisors are reviewing all market and cost assumptions to ensure that numbers are realistic. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how staff is making up for the elimination of public financing and redevelopment funds. The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded the Internal Rate of Return [IRR] decreases significantly when public financing is taken out of the project. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a large part of the discussion should involve what changes need to be made. The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated the on going negotiations involve starting to have said very serious conversations. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated it does not appear that Special… | CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2010-05-18 | 20 | Mr. Brown responded the embedded garage structure is a mechanism to meet the proposed parking standards, which are a tad more stringent. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated parking standards need to be more than a tad more stringent to be transit oriented. Mr. Brown stated such comments would be layered through professional consultants to see what would and would not work; the goal is to put people in proximity to public transportation. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the embedded garages are residential or commercial structures, to which Mr. Brown responded residential. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated people are going use a car if a car is available; Treasure Island is restricting people's ability to have cars. Mr. Brown stated the process would review the matter; the idea is to not see the garage. Mayor/Chair Johnson concurred; stated the look is more attractive. Mr. Brown stated the question is what is the appropriate parking ratio to maximize the amount of transit activity; the issue needs to be studied. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated Mr. Tagani was working on an analysis of historic assets; inquired whether the analysis has been completed. Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative; stated Mr. Tagani looked at every building and made recommendations on what would be economically viable to rehabilitate and reuse; reports have been prepared; staff wants a more detailed analysis on buildings which Mr. Tagani did not feel appropriate to move forward on. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a plan for accommodating affordable housing is important. Mr. Brown agreed. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated phasing plans are very important and need to be done sooner rather than later. Mr. Brown stated that the City has a phasing plan, which would be subject to discussion. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated there are a few critical issues; staff and SunCal are engaged in the process of negotiating a DDA; a DDA cannot be negotiated without knowing what is the project. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Communi… | CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2010-06-01 | 20 | without transit and traffic solutions; job one is paying for transit solutions; the project will not be successful if there is not enough money to pay for transit solutions. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the first recommendation in the staff report is to direct the Planning Board to provide an advisory recommendation on the OEA; that he has no faith that any amount of money would solve the issue of getting people who are in the 4,800 housing units on and off the island; having the Planning Board provide an advisory recommendation is important; financing can be reviewed in parallel because financing needs to be based on the project. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether staff is assuming that SunCal would provide a complete application by the Planning Board meeting, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the negative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated generally, the Planning Board provides a recommendation to Council based on a complete application; a work session or scoping session would take place if an application is incomplete; a formal vote would not be taken; a policy determination would be needed without a formal application; making a policy determination is the Council's job. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the application on file is not deemed complete yet; the matter is an advisory recommendation. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what the Planning Board would be reviewing if the application were incomplete. The Planning Services Manager responded the application includes a General Plan amendment and rezoning for the property; stated Council cannot take action on entitlement without an advisory recommendation from the Planning Board; Council's action would be to either deny or not deny the request and let the process continue; staff wanted to provide Council with the option of extending or not extending the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) or not given the… | CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2010-06-15 | 20 | Speakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; Ann Spanier, Alameda League of Women Voters; and Bill Smith, Alameda. Following Mr. Spangler's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the voluntary spending cap is enforceable; further inquired whether a candidate would sign a contract. The City Attorney responded the only way to enforce a voluntary spending cap would be to have the City set aside a pot of money for the purpose of contributing a match; opting out would always be an option; voluntary means voluntary and no ordinance can force candidates to agree to a voluntary limit on expenditures. Following Mr. Smith's comments, Mayor Johnson stated that the City is behind on the issue; there is no reason to delay; concurred that some type of voluntary spending cap should be reviewed; suggested seeing what other cities have. Vice Mayor deHaan requested clarification on the City's ability to control Political Action Committee's (PAC's) expenditures. The City Attorney stated that she has noticed a lot of public interest and some confusion on the distinction between campaign contributions and campaign expenditures; the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2010-06-24 | 20 | Mayor Johnson stated consensus is to leave direction as is; that she is not sure how to get feedback from the Sunshine Task Force. Ms. Lipow inquired whether Council wants the Task Force to use the ten-page on-line document, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded the document would be a start. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, APFA, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Ruse 20 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 24, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-06-24.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-20 | 20 | are not backed up with strong commitments to meet performance milestones; Footnote 4 of the scheduled performances addresses a milestone for vertical development that would apply to each water parcel in a phase and sixty months after the day the developer would transfer a lot or parcel to a vertical builder; stated there is no date for when the transfer has to occur; an initial phase could be taken down and a subsequent phase could be taken down but nothing requires SunCal to finish the first phase or to develop a commercial phase; timelines build off of phantom dates; force majeure, things beyond control, provisions are very broadly worded and allow way too much flexibility; Section 17.8.1 discusses changes in laws which could be broadly interpreted; a provision addresses actions of public agencies that regulate land use, development, or the provision of services to Alameda Point property that prevents, prohibits, or delays either the construction funding or development of the Alameda Point project under the conveyance of the property to developers; the City is a public agency that regulates land use; some of the provisions undermine the whole concept of the scheduled performance. Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether SunCal would need to abide by whatever is in the last, best, and final offer if the City decides to accept said offer, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the offer would need to be accepted or rejected, and there would be no room for negotiations. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded DDA negotiations would continue if the MOEA is not denied and Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners direct staff to move forward and negotiate with SunCal. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the offer is a take-it-or-leave-it offer for the City. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded not if the City continu… | CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-27 | 20 | pressure in the General Fund. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated Council sent the bond back at least three times and then reluctantly agreed to move forward; Council would not have gone forward if the provisions were know. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated refunding the bond over the time period left in the initial bond would result in higher debt service payments; payments would spike by not extending the debt service term beyond what was initially done on the debt. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated policies need to be development to avoid mistakes that have happened in the past. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated the City has very low debt ratio; debt is in the future; standards and policies need to be in place before debt is issued. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the policy approach is the same approach that is being taken with asset management; balancing the budget is necessary; revenue needs to be generated to fill the budget gap and long term affect; a long-term approach should be included as policies are developed. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that she will come back before the holidays with a financial policy similar to the asset management policy. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the Interim City Manager/ Executive Director stated refinancing cannot be done and that the General Fund would be needed; inquired how long the bleeding would last. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded there is no long-term funding out of the Library; General Fund dollars would be used on a recurring basis until 2014, unless another way is found. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the $12.1 million [General Fund balance] would drop. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the $1.7 million transfer to the Library would go up to $2.1 million and $2.2 million; stated staff will work very hard to find a solution; another part of the policy would be what would be financed with a thirty yea… | CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2010-09-07 | 20 | (10-430 CC) Recommendation to Authorize the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda to Enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with Warmington Residential for Redevelopment of the City's Corporation Yard Located at 1616 Fortmann Way and the City's Animal Shelter Located at 1590 Fortmann Way; and (10-67 CIC) Recommendation to Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement by and between the Community Improvement Commission and Warmington Residential for Redevelopment of the City's Corporation Yard Located at 1616 Fortmann Way and the City's Animal Shelter Located at 1590 Fortmann Way. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the project is small; inquired why the initial term of the ENA would be eighteen months. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the timeframe is more of an issue with the City developing a relocation study and is more for the City's benefit. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what has been learned from the SunCal ENA. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the City has standard and good faith provisions and termination dates in all ENAs; stated the project is for two acres and up to twenty-seven units; the ENA is simple and straightforward. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated no developer is perfect, but no developer is like SunCal; the City's relationship with SunCal totally broke down; inquired whether assurances are in place to avoid a similar breakdown with Warmington Residential. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded Warmington Residential has a proven track record in the City and is moving forward in very difficult economic times; stated staff feels comfortable with Warmington Residential. The Interim Executive Director stated staff needs to assess whether moving the two facilities [Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter] is feasible for the City; the ENA is not as complex as the SunCal ENA. Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the CIC budget includes $100,000 that wo… | CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2010-10-05 | 20 | exceed $500,000"; stated WETA would only get $400,000 if $400,000 comes in. The Ferry Manager continued the presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated having WETA take over the water side and not the land side is a good strategy; inquired whether Alameda would be required to maintain parking, to which the Ferry Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Board Member Matarrese stated the City has been waiting for a long time; the Agreement has been well crafted. Councilmember/Board Member Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Vice Mayor/Board Member deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated getting the bus service back to the [West End] ferry terminal would be good. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community 2 Improvement Commission October 5, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2010-11-16 | 20 | The Housing Department Executive Director gave a brief presentation. In response to Commissioner Gilmore's inquiry regarding when the development partner would be locked, the Housing Department Executive Director stated the CIC would enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) and Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA) to tie down the deal prior to being notified of the funding. Speaker: Robb Ratto, PSBA. Commissioner deHaan inquired currently, how many units are at the Islander Motel. The Housing Department Executive Director responded the Islander Motel has 62 units; stated one unit is occupied by the resident manager; the building has another structure in back which has been converted to seven units. Commissioner deHaan inquired how many units are proposed. The Housing Department Executive Director responded approximately 60 units; stated an architectural study would need to be done to determine the exact number. Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the cost for renovation, to which the Housing Department Executive Director responded $75,000 per unit. Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the square footage of a unit. The Housing Department Executive Director responded approximately 468 square feet; stated the units would be studio-size apartments. Commissioner Gilmore stated the total cost would be $4.5 million. The Housing Department Executive Director stated the approximate cost for the total project, including hard and soft costs, would be approximately $16 million, which would be $270,000 per unit; costs are on the high side but are within today's construction costs. Chair Johnson inquired whether costs are consistent with other projects. The Housing Department Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated the Breakers at Bayport and Shinsei Gardens were much higher but the square footage is greater. Chair Johnson inquired what was the per unit cost for the Shinsei Gardens units, to which the Housing Department Executive Director responded between $300,000 and $400,000; t… | CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2011-02-15 | 20 | Mr. Marshall noted that the City would be talking to ProLogis, not Catellus, if the transfer is not approved; stated everyone involved with the project is leaving as part of the TPG transaction; that he understands the frustration with the lack of progress; however, progress has been made with Stargell; the schedule is tight; the DDA amendments being contemplated are more technical in nature to accommodate the Target building; the amount of square footage allowed south of Mitchell Avenue is limited; a lot [of the amendments] are planning in nature; the issues have been discussed with Community Development staff; staff has liked what Catellus has presented. Chair Gilmore stated that she is not asking the questions because she does not want to give consent; rather, she is letting Catellus know if consent is given and the 2012 deadline is not met, there probably would not be any second chances; Catellus is hearing the community's and Commission's frustration; the economy could not have been predicted, but is turning around; hopefully, the project is a centerpiece; the City expects the project to be aggressively pursued; there will be a serious discussion if the 2012 deadline is missed. Mr. Marshall stated Catellus would do a better job of keeping the City informed. Chair Gilmore stated that she appreciates the sentiment; updates would be helpful going forward. Commissioner Tam stated that she sees the transfer as a fresh start; the lag has been due to the economy; Mr. Marshall has indicated the DDA amendments would be technical changes; the Deputy City Manager - Development Services has implied there would be an adjustment and crediting of the fire that cost $2.2 million and the Stargell project which came in at $9.2 million. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff could discuss the matter as part of the DDA amendments; the current DDA does not include anything regarding the fire. Commissioner Tam stated that she recalls the DDA has a demolition requirement. The Deputy City Manager - Development … | CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2011-07-19 | 20 | The EDC MOA would have to be amended to have an enforcement mechanism so that if development exceeded the envelope for the reuse plan, then the Navy would participate in some fashion on the back end. Member Johnson stated that amending the EDC MOA to include the enforcement mechanism is a good approach. Chair Gilmore agreed and looks forward to the report in September. Member deHaan stated he was impressed with the unifying voice and turnout of the community for the July 13th LBNL support workshop/BBQ. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary | CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2012-05-08 | 20 | Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Following the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore announced that regarding Performance Evaluation, the City Council discussed the City Manager performance review. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 8, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-05-08.pdf |
CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2012-05-15 | 20 | (12-249) Councilmember deHaan stated that he would change his vote on the depreciation ordinance [paragraph no. 12-246 to an aye with the caveat that it is what the Council intended to do. ADJOURNMENT (12-250) There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:16 a.m. in memory of Police Officer Dave Ellis and U.S. Army Sergeant Tom Fogerty. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 May 15, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2012-06-19 | 20 | be paid, to which Vice Mayor Bonta responded a payment plan or lump sum. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the motion is to approve a 90 day moratorium for 1523 Pacific Avenue and allow a payment plan where the City does not impose the lien; if the property owner does not pay up, the matter would come back next year, to which Vice Mayor Bonta responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the intent of the motion is to allow discussion of the penalty amount, to which Councilmember Tam responded the intent is to allow the property owner to work out an installment plan with staff. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the motion fixes the amount, to which Vice Mayor Bonta responded the motion does not contemplate the fixing of the amount or how it is paid, which he leaves to staff; it is fine if agreement is reached and staff holds the line and requests the whole amount be paid; that he is not saying one way or the other and is giving flexibility; the time and process are the most important component. The City Manager stated the woman is elderly and does not have income; that he does not see how an installment plan will happen. Vice Mayor Bonta stated family members are willing to pay. The City Attorney stated the attorney indicated the property owner is willing to fix the problem; requested clarification about whether the amount owed would be paid. Ms. Harrington responded the amount of the citation should be lowered; that she would want to review the amount of the fee; the family is willing to do whatever it takes to save the property. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether Ms. Harrington believes the citations are all for current work, to which Ms. Harrington responded in the negative. Councilmember Johnson stated the wiping out the past work should make the case easier to resolve; that she would like the matter included in the motion. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the motion allows working out the amount and whether there shou… | CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2013-04-02 | 20 | The City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated staff provides the design manual regardless of building height; the architect will have all the information; a subsection in the design manual will provide additional guidelines to be aware of to go up to 60 feet; 30 foot building proposals would ignore the section; the idea is to try to give some additional design guidance for tall buildings. The City Manager clarified buildings under 50 feet still go through design review; stated something special is required to go above a certain limit. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter would be addressed in the resolution adopting the Citywide design manual amendments. The City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated Council has two more items to consider: 1) the ordinance that sets a 60 foot height limit, which he does not recommend changing; and 2) the design manual, which would be adopted with one amendment creating additional guidelines addressing design features for buildings over 50 feet. Councilmember Tam expressed support for the approach outlined by the City Planner. Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Gilmore clarified that the motion is to approve the ordinance with the 60 foot limit. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes: Councilmember Chen - 1. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution approving the Citywide Design Manual Amendments with amendment. The City Planner clarified the amendment would be that staff would work with the Planning Board to create additional design guidelines for buildings over 50 feet. Councilmember Daysog stated the amendment begins to address the canyon issue; top floors could set back a little bit. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes: … | CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2013-04-16 | 20 | Vice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is a Safeway lifestyle store. Mr. Whiskeman responded Safeway uses the term lifestyle to define stores and describe new markets. Vice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft stated 45,000 square feet is the proposed footprint; inquired how the size compares to the South Shore and Harbor Bay Safeway stores. Mr. Whiskeman responded that he believes South Shore Store is larger; stated typical stores are 55,000 square feet. Vice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft stated a speaker indicated the South Shore store is about 60,000 square feet; inquired whether the size would be closer to the Harbor Bay store. Mr. Whiskeman responded that he believes the Harbor Bay store is a little bit smaller. Vice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the size would be somewhere between the Harbor Bay and South Shore stores, to which Mr. Whiskeman responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Agency Member Daysog stated the project is exciting; Safeway's lifestyle stores have expanded organic and specialty food selections, as well as an in store signature cafe and food center; having a lifestyle store allows residents to purchase prepared meals and better food; having a supermarket of such quality is imperative, which is why he embraces the strategy and cannot wait to see the development happen; that he likes the initial drawings and de-linking the gas station; that he is indifferent about the gas station; proposing a McDonald's might be a problem; a different establishment, such as Five Guys, might be acceptable; further stated that he believes the Catellus project has stimulated improvements on Webster Street and the College of Alameda; stated efforts have been purposely made to improve the gateway. Councilmember/Agency Member Tam stated that she appreciates the accommodations and changes made to be responsive to leakage categories; she does not have an issue with the fuel station because fuel falls under the leakage category; fuel station issues arise when stations are located… | CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2013-07-23 | 20 | The City Manager responded the direction should be to begin informal decisions consistent with the Council direction regarding options discussed. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the direction sounds like a good starting point. Councilmember Tam stated that she would feel more comfortable proceeding when Council is provided with additional information in September. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Tam is proposing that the sequence should be Council receives the information first; then gives direction. Councilmember Tam responded in the affirmative; stated that she would not object if the City Manager wants to meet and confer and start a dialog with the bargaining units as information is developed. The City Manager stated staff would proceed with said direction; reopening the MOUs would be premature. Mayor Gilmore stated Council has decided to move forward with the trust fund; the City Manager wants to inform bargaining groups that benefits will be discussed at some point; involving the groups from the beginning is more cooperative. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council does not meet again until September; the City Manager may use the summer to engage in informal discussions and feel out the groups; several things can be done at once; staff will return to Council in September; receiving more information from staff is not being precluded. Mayor Gilmore stated the bargaining are either present tonight or will watching the meeting; questions will come up. Councilmember Tam stated that she has no objections; concurred dialog is important and informal conversations are needed; stated people need to know what is transpiring; that she does take some exception to giving direction to have groups comment on the nine suggestions to find ways to address the problem. Mayor Gilmore stated said direction is not what she is hearing. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated possibly ideas not yet proposed might even come from the discussions. Mayor Gilmore summarized that the directions is: 1) staff would provide m… | CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2013-10-15 | 20 | UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING TUESDAY--OCTOBER 15, 2013- -7:01 P.M. Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 11:01 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Agency Members Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Chair Gilmore - 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. AGENDA ITEMS (13-018) Recommendation to Approve the Long-Range Property Management Plan. The Acting Community Development Director gave a brief presentation. Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation. Agency Member Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission October 15, 2013 1 | CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2013-11-05 | 20 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING TUESDAY--NOVEMBER 5, 2013- -6:59 P.M. Mayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Agency Members Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 5. Absent: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember/Agency Member Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Agency Member Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*13-019 SACIC) Minutes of the Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting (SACIC) Meeting Held on June 11, 2013 and the SACIC Meeting Held on September 17, 2013. Approved. (*13-488 CC/13- 020 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Fourth Quarter Financial Report for the Period Ending June 30, 2013. Accepted. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission November 5, 2013 1 | CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2014-04-15 | 20 | COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (14-154) Councilmember Tam announced the Alameda Police Officer's Association conducted a successful Easter Egg Hunt at Woodstock Child Development Center and would hold one at the Midway Shelter next Tuesday. ADJOURNMENT (14-155) There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council April 15, 2014 | CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2014-07-01 | 20 | Housing and Community Development Meeting; discussed progress on massage parlor laws. (14-298) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of California Cities Environmental Quality Policy Committee meeting and briefing about the Governor's budget. (14-299) Mayor Gilmore reminded the public about the Fourth of July Parade. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:56 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 19 July 1, 2014 | CityCouncil/2014-07-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2014-07-15 | 20 | 3. I pay rent to: Galagher & Li OMM, Inc. Ma Harbor Bay Re 1 Lapham Landlord 65% Other Harbor Bay Realty 3% Galagher & Lindsey 5% OMM, Inc., Mason Management 5% Lapham 1% Landlard Other 21% 4. What was the amount of your rent increase in the past 12 months? 0% rent increase - 42% of respondents 1 - 5% rent increase - 23% of respondents 6 - 10% rent increase - 19% of respondents 11 - 20% increase - 8% of respondents 21 -30% rent increase - 6% of respondents 30 +% rent increase - 1% of respondents Unknown - 2% of respondents 5. Concerns about your rent increase I was one of the 84 tenants evicted from XXX in June 2013. We had no protection contrary to what the Alameda City Manager stated at a City Council Meeting. We did have financial hardship. The only benefit we received was an offer to pay for moving expenses not beyond 3 hours. The time over the three hours was to be paid by the tenant. We only had the use of one elevator either morning or afternoon. For additional relocating costs and higher deposits I am out $5000+. In addition, what many of us thought odd was how fast permits were approved for the current demolition and retrofitting. This is generally not the norm for the permit process in Alameda. Just watch citizens approach the planning board to improve a personal property and it practically takes an act of Congress. I am personally for rent control. I am an active citizen who contributes both time and money to many organizations in Alameda. I am not yet concerned, but I am aware of the trend in Alameda and have much anxiety due to a limited income. Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015 2 www.RenewedHopeHousing.org I RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com I Laura Thomas (510)522-8901 | CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2014-09-16 | 20 | The Interim Finance Director gave a brief presentation. In response to Vice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Interim Finance Director stated bond insurance used to be quite common, but is not as common since the recession; only two agencies sell bond insurance; closer to the time of the sale, staff and the team will review whether there are any advantages and determine whether purchasing insurance would produce better pricing and more savings. Vice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether bond insurance guarantees the rate, to which the Interim Finance Director responded the insurance guarantees the bond holders would be paid if the City defaults. Vice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the General Fund savings could be applied to the Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) trust fund. The Interim Finance Director responded the Council could make a policy decision to do so; staff is not making any recommendations at this time; the matter could be addressed as part of the budget. Councilmember Daysog stated the bonds were issued when two redevelopment areas combined in 2003; joining the areas provided funds for the movie theater; one area had reached the end of its life; that he supported the issuance in 2003 and would support the staff recommendation tonight. Councilmember/Agency Member Daysog moved adoption of the resolutions. Vice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission September 16, 2014 | CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2014-12-02 | 20 | completion of the Clement Avenue Extension to divert truck traffic; she respects the opinions of all citizens but supports the neighbors who are more greatly affected by the project. Councilmember Chen stated that he likes the affordable housing stock and the 30,000 square feet of commercial development, which would be a low-trip generator and mitigate traffic; he likes the annual reporting; the City should not pass up on the opportunity to fix a historic landmark with a financially qualified developer; the project will eliminate 15 years of truck traffic; the impact fees of the project will contribute to the design and development of Jean Sweeney park; the TDM will work; it will not resolve all traffic concerns but will minimize traffic impacts of the project; he supports moving forward. Councilmember Tam stated that she agrees with the concerns raised; there is a cost to everything wanted in the project; she is ready to move forward. Mayor Gilmore stated the redesign of the major historic landmark would make Alameda proud; thanked the architects for their vision; stated that she is proud of the community for having civilized dialogue to move projects forward. In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Planner stated there are three multi-year parking studies being done in TDM plan. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read suggestions in a letter from Alison Greene; inquired whether there would be neighborhood representation on the Northern Waterfront TMA. The City Planner responded the Board of Directors for the TMA has not been established; direction should be added to the CEQA document. Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution Councilmember Chen seconded the motion. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be modified to include direction to add a non-voting neighbor liaison on the Northern Waterfront TMA. Councilmembers Tam and Chen agreed to amend the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and M… | CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-01-20.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2015-01-20 | 20 | Mayor Spencer inquired whether there needs to be a formal procedure to hear and continue items. The City Clerk responded the Mayor call the next item. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can move through the items quickly. Councilmember Oddie expressed concern that the referral items have already been continued from the last meeting; stated that he hesitates continuing the referrals a second time. Mayor Spencer stated that she prefers to get to the agenda items that need to be heard tonight. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether items can be continued to the Special City Council meeting already scheduled for tomorrow. The City Attorney responded the technical language of the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance allow Council to continue items to the Special meeting. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Manager stated staff prefers if the Vavrinek contract and audit be heard tonight, and the remaining items be continued to tomorrow's Special Meeting. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the Audit Report on the joint meeting agenda [paragraph no. 15-068 CC/15-002 SACIC next. Mayor Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Spencer called a recess to convene the joint meeting at 1:06 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 1:23 a.m. (15-054) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period Ending September 30, 2014 Collected During the Period April 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014. (Continued to February 3, 2015) (15-055) Recommendation to Accept the Treasury Report for the Quarter Ending September 30, 2014. (Continued to February 3, 2015) (15-056) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement between the City and Vavrinek, Trine, Day and Co., LLP (VTD) for Two Years with Three - One Year Extensions for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $703,460 for Independent Auditing Services. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City has had the same independent auditor for Regular Meeting Alameda Ci… | CityCouncil/2015-01-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2015-01-21 | 20 | Mayor Spencer inquired if Councilmember Daysog would like to continue as the liaison as opposed to the alternate, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended East Bay Division monthly meetings with former Councilmember Tam; she would be happy to continue as the East Bay Division representative. Mayor Spencer stated she is not sure about the East Bay Division and requested the voting delegate be discussed first. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the East Bay Division was mentioned; she would support Councilmember Daysog serving as the League voting delegate at the State level; she was indicating that she attends the locals meetings. Mayor Spencer stated an alternate is needed; inquired whether anyone is interested in being the alternate. Councilmember Daysog inquired if the East Bay Division is different than the League of California Cities, to which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded the League of California Cities East Bay Division is informed about pending legislation; she and former Councilmember Tam brought matters back to Council a couple of times; however, it is not the same as going to Statewide meetings and having a vote at the State level, rather it is the local version of the State League. The City Clerk stated former Councilmember Tam served as both; the City has had one League representative; the League is looking for an East Bay Division representative; the City also needs to have a voting delegate for the annual conference; Council has to decide whether to have one person or whether to break it into two different representatives; in the past, the City typically has had one person; former Councilmember Tam served as both. Mayor Spencer requested staff to explain what Council is being asked to do because said information is contrary to what staff told her. The Assistant City Manager stated Council needs to designate a voting delegate to represent the City of Alameda at the annual conference. The City Clerk stated the Annual Confe… | CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2015-02-17 | 20 | Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the referral [to adhere to the Council Referral process adopted by City Council on December 4, 2007]. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated it is the Mayor's prerogative to call special meetings; past practice could continue if proceeded reasonably. Councilmember Oddie stated he is not here to attack Mayor Spencer; the existing process works; a rules committee has not been established; he agrees that the Mayor has prerogative to call special meetings; if the Council had been able to go through more thorough discussion during the Council referral period and give staff direction, there would be concrete action items to discuss; Council should be expanding transparency instead of moving toward contracting transparency; he suggested a six month to one year trial basis and revisit the issue; he is open to having a time limit on the issue as the Council learns to work together. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the resolution adopted in 2007 did not preclude the Mayor from calling a special meeting. On the call for the question, the motion passed by the following votes: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Oddie - 3. Noes: Councilmember Daysog and Mayor Spencer - 2. Mayor Spencer stated it is unfortunate the issue was brought forward; that she should be afforded the same courtesy the City Manager gave to the prior Mayor; she is being afforded a different respect from the Councilmembers than the prior Mayor. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (15-138) Councilmember Oddie suggested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Mildred Parish Massey, Congresswoman Barbara Lee's mother. (15-139) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended the Association of Bay Area Governments/California State Association of Counties/Metropolitan Transportation Commission legislative workshop. The City Manager suggested that the meeting also be adjourned in memory of Golf Commissioner Tim Scates. (15-140) Mayor Spencer stated there was a spill … | CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2015-03-03 | 20 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- MARCH 3, 2015- -6:00 P.M. Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:01 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5. [Note: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 6:02 p.m. and Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:05 p.m.] Absent: None. Public Comment Former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda, provided a handout; gave a brief history on Alameda City Manager's; urged the Council appoint Assistant City Manager Liz Warmerdam as Interim City Manager. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (15-144) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action) *** A recess was called at 7:02 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at 12:42 a.m. Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer announced that the meeting was continued to March 10, 2015 at 5:30 p.m. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 1:28 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 3, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-03-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-04-07.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2015-04-07 | 20 | Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Council is to give direction or if the matter is just an update, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative; stated there is no action. The Assistant City Manager stated staff will be coming back to Council with a report. Vice Mayor Matarrese requested a scenario in the report that funds are taken from lease revenues to demolish problem buildings. Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to see a written report for the community at the next go round; test results should be included for the public; areas will be cleaned and made less unsightly; the City has limited funds and different scenarios should be discussed. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 April 7, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-04-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-05-05.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2015-05-05 | 20 | Vice Mayor Matarrese stated a committee does not need to be set up now; assignees are set; that he would like to make sure briefings are done and representatives are reporting out after. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated appointments can be done the same as public bodies. Mayor Spencer stated she does not support any change to the existing practice. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Mayor Gilmore polled members of the Council asking their interest on serving on a particular body; regional bodies are just as important to the public; she is not asking for a major change. Councilmember Oddie concurred with Vice Mayor Matarrese's direction; stated Council should be made aware of whether or not there is any City policy. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of using the same appointment procedure as done for internal boards and commissions and having clarification of a City policy on how appointees represent the City. Councilmember Oddie requested bifurcating the motion. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of establishing a procedure for appointments to regional boards and commissions. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion which FAILED by the following voice votes: Ayes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and Daysog - 2; Noes: Vice Mayor Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2; Abstentions: Councilmember Oddie - 1 Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the City Attorney come back with guidelines on City policies that might be considered when representing the City on regional boards and commissions. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion which passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Vice Mayor Matarrese - 3; Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1; Abstentions: Councilmember Daysog - 1. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (15-316) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Golf Commission, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners (HABOC), and Public Art Commission (PAC). Mayor Spencer nominated Stephanie Shipe to the HABOC and Brandy Graham and Sommer Carter to the PAC. Regular … | CityCouncil/2015-05-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2015-05-19 | 20 | Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about increased traffic from Alameda Point through Tube as discussed in the EIR and Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP); stated Council did evaluate and make policy decisions with regards to transportation; he likes the changes, which include the 15-minute headway for the shuttle, and the stops at one or more places; he would like language in the Development Agreement (DA) to protect Alameda in the event of a recession; land banking is an important discussion; the Development Plan (DP) is a key part of Alameda Point which has taken decades to get to this point; suggested including the DP on June 16th for ceremonial reasons. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft read a letter from Carol Fairweather in support of Site A. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is glad to see progress on a PLA; he is encouraged by acceleration of commercial development and more jobs; the North Housing realignment allows Council to consider housing in the context of the Housing Element; he is glad the public has opportunity to see the Site A financials. Mayor Spencer expressed concern about issues, including housing, traffic, the ferry terminal, and the proposed sports complex. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the ferry terminal would be located in the seaplane lagoon, which is the heart of the development, so people would be able to walk or ride bikes to the ferry. Mayor Spencer inquired the total cost and timeline of the sports complex, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the total cost is $20 million; stated the timeline will depend on the timeline for the rest of the development which is subject to the City Council desire to dispose and develop land. The Interim Assistant City Manager stated it is feasible to develop the complex in stages similar to other park projects; the entire $20 million does not need to be raised before building begins. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Interim Assistant City Manager stated de… | CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-06-02.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2015-06-02 | 20 | 289 (15-374) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Civil Service Board, Commission on Disabilities, Golf Commission, Library Board, Planning Board, Public Art Commission, Public Utilities Board, Recreation and Park Commission, Social Service Human Relations Board, and Transportation Commission; and Mayor's Appointment to the Rent Review Advisory Committee. Stated that hopes to continue serving on the Transportation Commission: Chris Miley, Alameda. Mayor Spencer made brief comments on the candidates and process; nominated Jan Brandt and Cookie Robles-Wong for appointment to the Civil Service Board; Edward Downing and Ronald Carlson for appointment to the Golf Commission; and Karin Lucas for appointment to the Rent Review Advisory Committee. The City Clerk clarified that the Rent Review Advisory Committee appointment would not return to Council. Mayor Spencer stated members of the public could continue submitting applications. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for Mr. Miley and encouraged diversity. Councilmember Oddie expressed support for Mr. Miley and urged he be reappointed. Mayor Spencer stated the City has a diverse pool of applicants and that she is working with staff and the community; she welcomes more board and commission applications. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (15-375) Linda Weinstock, discussed the drought and water saving measures that should be implemented in new development and urged implementation of rebates. Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff could look into the matter. The Interim City Manager stated EBMUD has rebates. (15-376) Ken Peterson, Alameda expressed his appreciation for the Police and Fire budget presentations; discussed the amount of money spent on public safety; stated Joe Ernst gave a presentation to the Alameda Citizens Task Force; discussed energy efficiency and clean energy. ADJOURNMENT (15-377) Councilmember Oddie requested the meeting be adjourned in memory of School Board member Neil Tam; made brief comments. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council June 2… | CityCouncil/2015-06-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2015-09-01 | 20 | 377 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 1:22 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-09-15.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2015-09-15 | 20 | The Interim City Manager stated in hindsight, the test should have dug deeper; the lesson from this is that the testing will now be done more thoroughly for all of Alameda's Beltline properties; staff will also review the conditions of the sale of the property to see if there is any recourse. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he has not seen other ways of staying within the budget, such as value engineering; he would like to defer the expenditure of $457,000 until there is a real analysis. The Interim Assistant City Manager stated staff went through a value engineering process prior to construction; the buildings are essential; most of the funds would go toward framing and heavy duty reinforcement; the contingency has run out; the only option is to stop the project to bring every changeorder to Council; the cost is $1,298 per day if the project sits idle; the project is a radically different project than the Library project and value engineering does not apply in the same way. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he would still like to see a written analysis. The Interim Assistant City Manager stated delaying the project may cost more. Councilmember Daysog stated this project is an example of a project that has been fully vetted by Council and the public; he is willing to move the project forward; the project has more level of detail than the EWS project which warrants spending the $457,000. The Interim Assistant City Manager stated he is partly at fault for the lower contingency; that he should have requested the full $800,000 initially. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the EOC. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor Matarrese; she would like to take a closer look at the contract acquiring the Beltline property; she would like to have additional information to know that all other options are exhausted. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Oddie and Mayor Spence… | CityCouncil/2015-09-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2015-10-06 | 20 | 10:50 p.m. in honor of former Councilmember Barbara Kerr. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 October 6, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2015-10-20 | 20 | Mr. Hawke responded 36 is comfortable for him if Council would agree. Mayor Spencer stated the motion requires four votes to pass; she appreciates three Councilmembers are enthusiastic and one Councilmember is not; she is in between and is concerned the containers will be seen driving around. Councilmember Oddie inquired if the screening could be increased in size. Mayor Spencer responded that she prefers the view and would not want to increase the screening; the space is large; the original amount stated was 30 containers. Councilmember Oddie stated 36 containers are being requested. Mayor Spencer stated Mr. Hawke originally requested 30 containers. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the use is maritime the City should not tie the hands of tenants; inquired if the water is behind the building. Mayor Spencer inquired if Matson work with 30 containers. The Economic Development Division Manager responded 36 containers will take up 86,000 square feet of the outside area, which is approximately 15%. Mayor Spencer inquired if the containers will be together or scattered. Robert Hawke responded the containers would be set very neatly, side by side, with doors facing in a single direction for access; they could be lined up perpendicular to the building. Mayor Spencer inquired where the containers would be located. The Chief Operations Officer-Alameda Point, clarified Matson stated the containers would be on 6% of the outdoor land area. Mayor Spencer requested details on the containers location; inquired whether the containers would be adjacent to the building. Mr. Hawke responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired would the containers be in the back of the building as opposed to the front. Mr. Hawk showed an exhibit and explained the containers would be stored west to east perpendicular to the building. Urged Council not to go forward; stated the view of the ships brings her a sense of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 October 20, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2015-11-04 | 20 | 500 strengthening could be built upon or Council could choose to proceed with the layered upon approach. Councilmember Daysog expressed his support for the Community Development Director's layered approach; suggested providing two layering options: both with and without rent control. The Community Development Director stated based on the discussion tonight, staff would review ways to strengthen the mediation process, just cause and relocation benefits. Councilmember Oddie stated that he likes the Community Development Director's suggestion; the Mayor's suggestion to make mediation binding is arbitration; three Councilmembers seem to support some type of binding protection for units that can be subject to said protection; the high level concept is there. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the Community Development Director's layering suggestion; stated that she is concerned about people being afraid to ask for basic repairs, which would be addressed by requiring a landlord to appear, a just cause eviction ordinance, and relocation assistance. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like relocation assistance embedded in the just cause ordinance similar to Richmond and Glendale. In response to the Interim City Manager's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated just cause and no cause are synonymous in this case; the idea is relocation benefits would be provided if tenants are being evicted not for cause. Councilmember Daysog outlined the instances allowed in the Glendale ordinance; stated that he is also interested in relocation assistance as he outlined earlier. The Community Development Director stated the purpose of the no cause eviction ordinance would be to not have eviction used as a work around to avoid going to the RRAC. In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated having specific conditions is the typical way to structure a no cause eviction ordinance. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the RRAC could mediate evictions; provided an exam… | CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2015-12-15 | 20 | 554 Councilmember Daysog stated the issue will have to be pursued privately. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the issue would have to come back to Council if pursued privately because the City owns the building; any significant architectural change to a historic building needs approval; he does not want to give a false impression that if the money is raised, the changes can happen. The Community Development Director stated the matter would go before the Historical Advisory Board because it is a landmark. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (15-749) The Interim City Manager announced the Alameda County Public Works Agency will be performing emergency repairs to the High Street Bridge on December 18th from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; neighbors of Godfrey Park are encouraged to attend a design review meeting on December 16th at 6:00 p.m. at the park. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (15-750) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced she attended several Alameda Police Officer Association (APOA) events, including Shop with a Cop at Target with 13 children. Mayor Spencer stated she also attended the Shop with a Cop event. Councilmember Oddie stated that he attended the APOA events, which were an amazing experience. (15-751) Mayor Spencer announced she attended the County Supervisors meeting on the issue of Laura's Law. (15-752) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended the opening of Natalie's Nook, a children's reading area, at the Alameda County Family Justice Center. (15-753) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination to the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC). Regular Meeting Alameda City Council December 15, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2016-01-05 | 20 | In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated the tenant would have to indicate what they choose to do once they are served with a 30 or 60 day notice. Councilmember Oddie stated the vacancy rate is critical on whether or not someone finds a new apartment or not. Mayor Spencer stated that she would prefer to allow the tenant to choose and work it out with the landlord Councilmember Daysog stated practical scenarios need to be considered; mom and pop landlords would have difficulty paying relocation expenses. The Community Development Director stated relocation benefits and eviction protections would cover all rental properties in the City; Costa Hawkins does not have a role or limitations for eviction protection or relocation benefits, it is strictly on setting maximum allowable rent increases. Councilmember Daysog stated thinking through the issue with regard to small mom and pop landlords is important; small mom and pop landlords could be defined as people with single family homes, duplexes, or triplexes. The Community Development Director stated relocation benefits are triggered by no cause/no fault evictions; there is no difference in the building size. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the single family tenant who gets a no cause eviction would get relocation benefits, as currently drafted in the ordinance; under Councilmember Daysog's proposal, the single family tenants would not get relocation benefits. In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Daysog stated he proposes small mom and pops would be exempt from having to provide relocation assistance because it would be difficult for them to absorb the cost without having the ability to spread it across several units. The Community Development Director stated single family homes would not have the disincentive of the binding arbitration because they are exempt from rent control; they would still have the RRAC process, mediation and appeal to Cou… | CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2016-02-02 | 20 | Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept, on behalf of the City, Certain Surplus Federal Property, and to Accept, Execute, and Record Conveyance Documents in Substantial Conformance with Certain Phase 2 Property and Conveyance Documents from the United States of America, Acting by and through the Department of the Navy, to Implement the Economic Development Conveyance Agreement for the Former Naval Air Station, Alameda (Phase 2 Alameda Point Conveyance). Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (16-056) Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Certain Elements of a Proposed Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance. *** Mayor Spencer called a recess at 11:12 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:20 p.m. *** The Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation. Urged Council to put restrictions on evictions; stated more than 53% of Alamedan's are renters: Eric Strimling, Alameda. Stated mom and pop landlords are concerned with being able to sustain their business; cost of repairs might be greater than the 5% threshold: Keith Weitzen, Landlord. Stated Alameda is a very tight community; landlords pay parcel tax to support the School District; restricting rent control in one format will penalize mom and pop landlords: Phoebe Yu, Landlord. Stated he is a mom and pop landlord; 5% increase are too small to make necessary repairs; there are tenants that are not compliant with the rules; no just cause evictions helps landlords: Kevin Ye, Landlord. Stated the 5% increase does not cover costs for mom and pop landlords to make repairs; it is difficult to refinance when under market value: Amanda Yee, Landlord. Requested certain exemptions for the proposed ordinance; stated rent control should be income based: Frannie Mok, Landlord. Stated he is a mom and pop landlord; stated he makes very small rent increases; requested clarification on the RRAC process and who will be required to pay for the process; sta… | CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2016-02-16 | 20 | Mayor Spencer stated there are differences between fixed term leases versus month-to- month; inquired whether staff is saying landlords have to offer a second year without any rent increase; stated that she feels it substantially changes the relationship and is legally challengeable; the landlord is not getting any different consideration. The Assistant City Attorney responded the landlord has to offer a lease whether or not there is a rent increase. Mayor Spencer inquired what the consideration is for the other side; stated one side cannot be asked to give something without the other getting something. The Assistant City Attorney responded the ordinance is rent review, rent stabilization and limitations on evictions; stated the Council has authority to enact the provision. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is an added tenant protection. Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired if a fixed term lease ending is not an eviction because the term is done and the contract is over, so relocation fees are not paid. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated a fixed term lease means there is a 12 month lease; the evergreen clause in residential rental leases in California make leases automatically go month-to-month at the end of the lease with the absence of a new lease. Councilmember Oddie stated the Council direction was to try to limit landlords from terminating tenancy at the end of a one year lease by requiring relocation benefits. Councilmember Daysog clarified that he does not think relocation benefits should be offered at the end of a lease. Mayor Spencer stated that she does not agree with there being a fixed term lease and the landlord having to offer a new lease at the end of that lease unless there is an increase in rent. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether language: "at which time a rent increase is served" would be added to Subsection B. Mayor Spencer stated landlords can offer another year without a rent increase, but the City should not require landlords to offer another year… | CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-01 | 20 | (16-114) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining item: the referral on mixed use zoning. [paragraph no. 16-117 Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the item. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Oddie - 1. Submitted information; stated that he is concerned about the RRAC structure as proposed; a little bit of clarity could avoid conflict: John Sullivan, Alameda. Stated the plan has technical concerns that need to be addressed; Alameda is facing a housing crisis; urged Council to help alleviate housing stress for Alameda families: Phillip James, Alameda. Expressed concern over the operating cost of the ordinance; stated the fee study should estimate a lower amount and decrease the bureaucracy: Rosalinda Fortuna, Alameda. Stated the purpose of government is to provide justice; Council should listen to voters and take steps to ensure everyone stays honest: Malia Vella, Alameda. Councilmember Daysog stated that he appreciated Mr. Sullivan's handout; some of Mr. Sullivan's suggestions would work to stymie the increased rents; adopting some ideas would show that Council is trying to do the best for the small mom and pop landlords; having agencies like ECHO Housing evaluate renter's habitability claims is a good suggestion; he also likes the idea of the relocation assistance benefit being paid to the next landlord; he would like to exempt owners of up to two residential units in relocation assistance for family move-in. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is intrigued by Mr. Sullivan's suggestions, but would like to pass the ordinance in the form of the first reading; she would like to give the ordinance a chance; the current Council could make a change before the year is up; all tenants should be protected; different classes of tenants should not be created; fairness should also extend to all landlords. Councilmember Od… | CityCouncil/2016-03-01.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]) );