pages
211 rows where page = 21
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: body
date (date) 211 ✖
- 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
- 2005-12-06 1
- 2006-06-20 1
- 2006-09-05 1
- 2006-09-19 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
- 2007-03-26 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
- 2008-05-06 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
- 2009-06-16 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
- 2010-07-20 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
- 2012-05-15 1
- 2012-06-19 1
- 2013-04-02 1
- 2013-04-16 1
- 2013-07-23 1
- 2014-07-15 1
- 2014-12-02 1
- 2015-01-20 1
- 2015-01-21 1
- 2015-02-02 1
- 2015-02-17 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
- 2016-07-05 1
- 2016-09-20 1
- 2016-10-18 1
- 2016-11-01 1
- 2016-12-06 1
- 2016-12-14 1
- 2017-02-23 1
- 2017-03-21 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
- 2018-04-17 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
- 2018-10-16 1
- 2018-11-28 1
- 2019-01-29 1
- 2019-02-05 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
- 2019-10-15 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
- 2021-03-11 1
- 2021-03-16 1
- 2021-03-30 1
- 2021-04-05 1
- 2021-04-20 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,21 | CityCouncil | 2005-05-17 | 21 | Mayor Johnson stated Council could begin working on the larger issue; the Acting City Manager should not be expected to deal with the budget problem and the major project of restructuring the City's government, which is a longer term issue that needs to be addressed separate from the budget. The Acting City Manager stated the proposed budget gets the City through the next year; hopefully the State will live up to the requirements of Constitutional Amendment 1A and no longer take city revenues, which would put the City in a better position the following year. Councilmember deHaan stated that he would not exclude reviewing reorganization for the next year budget; staff has the knowledge to determine service impacts; the budget is a major step in the right direction; all budgets should be reviewed, not just the General Fund. The Acting City Manager stated the Council should be aware of other funds in the City; the budget document addresses other funds, but other funds were not highlighted in the staff report; the major deficit is in the General Fund, which funds most departments. Councilmember deHaan stated deficits would occur in some of the funded programs and adjustments would be necessary. Vice Mayor Gilmore thanked staff for the clarity of the report. stated the Council is concerned about not filling vacant positions and about reductions in force; Department Head presentations [at the next meeting] should address how reductions affect service delivery to citizens; the Council should adopt the budget with eyes wide open and the citizens should know what is coming down the pike; if it will take staff longer to respond to questions after budget adoption, people should know before it occurs; the community should be involved; hopefully, there will be more citizen participation at the next meeting; suggested the matter be placed earlier on the agenda. Councilmember Daysog stated the City should know the profile of a full service city; if the police force is down to 104 officers, the Council should know whether simila… | CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2005-06-07 | 21 | Mayor Johnson inquired whether a grant writing position could be utilized by all departments. The Acting City Manager responded there has been consideration to have an experienced grant writing volunteer; stated grant application opportunities will not be missed. Councilmember Daysog stated there are consulting companies that provide grant search and administration services and only charge a portion of the grant amount. Mayor Johnson stated that a professional grant writer might be more aware of grant opportunities the possibility of contracting out Citywide grant writing services should be reviewed. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $75,000 to $125,000 for the Park Master Plan consulting services is included in the budget, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the negative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether anything has been done on the Park Master Plan, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the initial research has been performed; a Citywide needs assessment was performed a few summers ago. The Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation on the Human Resources Department's budget reduction impacts. The Building Official gave a brief presentation on the Planning and Building Department's budget reduction impacts. Mayor Johnson stated that there are part-time planners at Alameda Point and City Hall: inquired whether having all planners at one location would be more efficient. The Building Official responded there is one Planner working two days a week at Alameda Point and the rest of the week at City Hall; the schedule has worked out well; the Planner will need to spend more time at City Hall because of the Planning Services Manager cut. Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Department's cost recovery is still at 90%, to which the Building Official responded cost recovery is at 100%. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 6 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority June 7, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2005-07-19 | 21 | Mayor Johnson stated that her preference would be to set the [gross ] amount at $250; the matter can be addressed when the new Contract with the City Attorney is negotiated; inquired the clearest way to make a record of the fact that any changes to Contracts have to be brought to the Council for a vote; inquired whether the action should be a resolution. The Acting City Manager responded staff could bring the matter back to Council. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the matter would return as a resolution, to which the Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated Council would address the [vehicle allowance] amounts later. Vice Mayor Gilmore noted the item brought back would be a policy. (05-366) Proposal for City Council Oversight on Expenditures from Outside Counsel Appropriations. Mayor Johnson stated the matter was on the Closed Session Agenda at the last meeting; the matter was continued to tonight because the preference was to address the matter in open session. The City Attorney stated the proposal has limitations on spending, settlement authority, additional reporting requirements and limitations on the hiring of outside counsel through an RFP process, creating four outside counsel panels. Mayor Johnson stated that her intent is not to limit the amount of money the City spends on outside counsel; costs cannot be known ahead of time; the amount is not her concern; her concern is the hiring of outside counsel approving the hiring of outside counsel can be brought to the Council without a dollar limit; there is concern about litigation strategies and not setting dollar parameters because the other side can be tipped off about how committed the City is to the litigation; that she does not understand why the matter cannot be brought to the Council stating the attorney to be hired for the particular case; the Council approval could have no dollar information included; the names of counsel and how much is paid per month is in the bills for ratification; who represents the City is… | CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2005-08-16 | 21 | Mayor Johnson stated the rent is a percentage, not a straight $0.40 per square foot. Valerie Ruma, Appellant, stated the Council is not reviewing the environmental aspect, such as traffic; an environmental impact report is required by the law before the project can go forward. The Assistant City Attorney stated that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires either a negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ; a letter from the Appellant's attorney raised an issue that an EIR would have been required if a fair argument was raised at the time the negative declaration was initially adopted; the mitigated negative declaration was adopted in May; pursuant to CEQA, the mitigated negative declaration is presumed, by law, to be adequate if not challenged within thirty days of approval; the mitigated negative declaration was not challenged. Ms. Ruma stated that the City Attorney's office provided contradictory information that there was no specific appeal process and the appeal tonight could be in written or oral form. The Assistant City Attorney stated the substance of the design review could be appealed but that the environmental review is not being addressed tonight. Mayor Johnson requested that the Assistant City Attorney discuss the matter with Ms. Ruma. Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the parking structure is a design/build project; a picture was shown which was very similar to the proposed design, except that the picture seemed more vertical with narrower opening; inquired whether narrow openings would be an issue from a construction standpoint. The Development Services Director responded that she could not answer whether the openings could be made smaller there are a number of structural issues relative to the parking garage because of other design achievements, such as the least amount of columns possible inside the interior garage to provide maximum safety and view; the design is contemplated to carry a lot of load on the outside walls; that she would obtain an answer and provide the inf… | CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2005-12-06 | 21 | ensure that internal finances are controlled. Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember Matarrese stated having the City Auditor involved would be beneficial; inquired whether there was a way to increase the City Auditor's role. Mayor/Chair Johnson noted the External Auditor does not need to be involved. The City Auditor stated that the City was in reasonably good shape and improvement was being made in controlling costs; the ten-year study would enlighten the Council on tough issues; the Finance Director was in the unenviable position of being at the same level as other department heads; suggested that he meet with the Finance Director periodically to address issues. The City Manager stated that she would be happy to work with the City Auditor; she believes that the Finance Director was comfortable with identifying issues with other departments; discussions with the City Auditor could be more routine. The City Auditor stated that there was no need for a formal policy. Mayor Johnson stated that the discussion was not out of concern; there have been considerable changes since the City Manager joined the City; thanked everyone who worked on the audits; stated that she looks forward to the ten-year projection. Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember deHaan moved approval of accepting the submitted reports. Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 9:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 7 Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority December 6, 2005 | CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2006-06-20 | 21 | past. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether GABA's needs should be reviewed. The Development Services Director responded the City has talked with GABA; stated the City assisted GABA by paying fees for a bike race; GABA is aware that the City will help if needed. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether WABA and PSBA have different funding streams. The Development Services Director responded she was not aware of any; stated both associations have the Business Improvement Tax and fundraisers. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated money should be set aside for GABA. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated money should not be set aside if not requested. The Development Services Director stated the practice is that no reasonable request would be denied. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the golf revenue is down for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 and possibly is due to the weather the projected budget for 2007 is up 38%; inquired whether the increase is based on a projection for better weather or something else. The Finance Director responded the 2007 revenue projection is based on an average rain year; stated the last two years had excessive rain; the increase does not include any fee increases. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the Golf Commission is discussing fee increases, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative. The City Manager/Executive Director stated any proposed increase would come to Council. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what happens if there are a lot of rain days next year. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 7 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 20, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2006-09-05 | 21 | provided. Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the disputed overtime is from the primary job, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Daysog stated that both the Rutledge and CIC figures show approximately $2,900 for the Peralta College salary; inquired whether the $2,900 is the actual dollar amount. The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated W-2's have not been received from the Peralta Community College District; $2,900 is an estimate. Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the $2,900 estimate is for actual teaching time, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. In response to Commissioner Daysog's inquiry regarding the income threshold for a family of four, the Housing Development Manager stated the income threshold is $83,800. Chair Johnson inquired whether other information was incomplete in the application package. The Housing Development Manager responded ADC believed sufficient information was available to determine that the Rutledge's income was over the threshold; the Rutledge's only provided information regarding the addition of the fifth household member when the City inquired whether the Rutledge's wished to submit additional information; Peralta Community College District pay stubs, 2005 income tax returns, and W-2's would be requested if the determination process were starting now. Commissioner Matarrese inquired why the Social Security Administration overtime communication occurred. The Development Services Director responded the Rutledge's wanted to dispense with any overtime in order to qualify stated the City requested a letter from the Social Security Administration stating that no overtime would occur; a strong letter was not received; the City determined that overtime could occur. Commissioner deHaan inquired why an evaluation was not made for the first group of applicants, and whether applicants were aware that an evaluation would not be made initially. The Development Services Director res… | CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2006-09-19 | 21 | Counci lmember/Authority Member/Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Commissioner Torrey seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 7:49 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, Alameda Reuse 2 and Redevelopment Authority, Community Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners September 19, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2006-10-17 | 21 | that have speed limits of 35 miles per hour. The Transportation Commission Chair stated a survey was mailed out to a random sample of 1,200 Alameda Power and Telecom customers ; speed limit was one of the specific questions ; there was overwhelming support for not raising the speed limit. The City Engineer stated classification systems are used for funding purposes the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) looks at speeds an impact exists if speed is lower than the speed designated for an arterial. impacts have to be mitigated. Mayor Johnson stated Alameda's arterials are different than other cities and should not be compared with other cities; Alameda does not have true arterials. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he likes the roadway alterations policies being fairly tight restrictions provide a direction that moves away from reliance on single occupancy vehicles; goals need to be met at some point; planning can be driven from policies rather than a dictate for a 35 mile per hour four-lane road; policies need to be reviewed carefully; he likes all of the policies, except Policy No. 7; Policy No. 7 does not meet the explanation and intent that has been given; Policy No. 7 could use some polishing, but the intent is good. Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated he supports the draft policies and the work of the Transportation Commission; the entire point of the seven policies is to make the actual costs of driving automobiles more explicit; society has been slow in recognizing and accounting for the costs; waiting in traffic for five to ten minutes when a draw bridge is up is more than Level F but is not classified as a significant impact because it is part of the price of being in Alameda; he rejects any suggestion to make Webster Street and Appezzato Parkway an eight-lane intersection in order to accommodate the few hours per day that there might be high traffic; Policy No. 7's intent is to find other ways to solve the problem instead of encouraging more cars on the road and adding to the problem; urged Council to support… | CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2006-11-21 | 21 | Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated there ought to be a goal or timeline for the initial EDC and Planning Board public meetings i the meetings should happen soon after the NWSP is adopted in January or February. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the timing depends upon when further information is developed and there is a more specific plan; how much time it will take is not known; it is too early to start setting timeframes. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated it is important to have the Transportation Commission review prior to the ENA returning for a vote as well as adding in a minimum expectation that the applicant makes direct contact with the neighborhood association and neighbors of the site; said additions [to the motion] are good; Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog's point is that the issue should be revisited to determine the timing once the NWSP is approved timing might not be known; the Council/Commission should receive a report indicating the applicant's status and the potential for meeting with the EDC and Planning Board within a month of the NWSP being approved; the Council/Commission can decide what direction to take at said point and the update would afford another opportunity for public input. louncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese's recommendation is reasonable. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated an update on the status would return to the Council/Commission. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the developer or someone else would have to make the case to bring the matter back sooner rather than later. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan suggested the Recreation and Parks Commission address the issue. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the action would set the minimum; there could be other commissions. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated said matter should be discussed at the meeting addressing the status because then the plan may start talking about a public park in more real terms the developer is doing a lot of work that may be moving the… | CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2006-12-05 | 21 | would be reviewed by the Planning Board and Transportation Commission before first phase development is approved; an annual reporting process also would be required to evaluate how the program is doing; flexibility is necessary for the TDM Coordinator to respond to user demand. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the Transportation Commission and Planning Board could set trip reduction goals and a measuring methodology. The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the business deal provides Catellus with some security as to the program cost; $425,000 must be provided to the TDM program for operations each year; the City does not have the ability to come back in three years and unilaterally request $600,000 Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired who determines how to use the $425,000. The Supervising Planner responded the Planning Board and Transportation Commission have the ability to review the TDM program for the first phase of the project; stated the program would be up and running once the first phase development is approved; the manager would oversee the use of the money. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether recommendations would be brought to Council. The Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated the site phase is at the Planning Board approval level. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether shuttle use would be contemplated in the TDM program. The Supervising Planner responded the idea was to establish a funding source for an annual operation and allow some flexibility for how best to use the money. *** Councilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Daysog moved to continue the meeting past midnight. Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. *** Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 10 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission December 5, 2006 | CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-02 | 21 | one or within a reasonable timeframe and have the funding to do SO. The Supervising Planner responded the DA requires that shuttle services run to BART in thirty minute headways on day one; the project would need to be subsidize beyond the money coming in from the tenant; buses are going to be running when Clif Bar goes in; a system needs to be up and running as soon as possible; every West End project needs to contribute to the fund. Councilmember deHaan stated internal loop systems have been discussed; the system would be enhanced as individual developments come on line; inquired whether there was enough money for day one operations. The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the current agreement states that shuttles would run on thirty minute headways to Oakland BART; the TDM Program was not tied to a specific number of trips removed from the tubes; the program has the flexibility to make changes. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is latitude to measure the program and fund the program at a higher level if necessary. The Supervising Planner responded the conditions have an annual reporting requirement; the DA requires that the project provide up to $425,000 per year in annual operating and management expenses for the program upon full build-out; the characteristics of the program can be adjusted from year to year; an annual survey is required the program can be augmented by setting up performance criteria; any development partner would want certainty a specified formula or percentage is needed to ensure that the developer knows what they are signing up for. Councilmember deHaan stated the City needs to know what they are signing up for also; support would be needed from individual developments; hopefully, Alameda Point will be on line at some point transportation concerns need to be addressed; inquired whether measuring triggering devices can be done. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated Council could direct that the DA be amended to… | CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2007-01-16 | 21 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - -JANUARY 16, 2007 - - -7:29 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:50 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. MINUTES (07-001) Minutes of the Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and Community Improvement Commission (CIC) Meeting held on December 5, 2006. Approved. Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioner deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions: Commissioner Tam - 1. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (07-002) Report on Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project Construction update. The Development Manager gave a brief presentation. Commissioner Gilmore inquired when the parking garage foundation would be poured. The Development Manager responded the foundation would be poured in phases, starting with the back corner of Long's and working forward; stated the first pour would be in three to four weeks. Commissioner Matarrese stated some value engineered items overlap with the list presented in July; inquired whether the parking garage exterior appearance would be altered by any of the value engineered items not presented in July. The Development Manager responded all value engineered items were on the July list with the exception of the stairs stated the top slab was eliminated and does not affect the façade. Commissioner Matarrese stated he did not see the deletion of the precast spandrel panels in the July report. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 1 January 16, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2007-02-20 | 21 | Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, 5 Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission February 20, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2007-04-17 | 21 | drastically. The Redevelopment Manager stated staff requested that the entire façade be retrofitted with additional concrete, foam, and pipe rails. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether any economy would be gained by having the same people work on the parking garage marquee who are working on the Historic theater marquee. The Redevelopment Manager responded the matter could be explored stated the parking garage signage was competitively bid. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Redevelopment Manager is comfortable with the contingency. The Redevelopment Manager responded the Construction Management Team is comfortable. Commissioner deHaan stated the contingency issue is different for the Historic Theater. The Redevelopment Manager stated the Historic Theater is a design- build project; the 10% contingency is very prudent. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether street and parking constrictions would last until the end of the project. The Redevelopment Manager responded that she hopes to alleviate the constrictions prior to the holiday season. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Park Street Business Association is comfortable with the timeline. Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) , responded staff has done an excellent job in keeping the lines of communication open; stated PSBA understands that the Oak Street closure could last until the end of the project; PSBA Board Members and merchants are much less concerned with the northern exposure than signage at this point; the PSBA Board will take a tour of the theater next Wednesday at 8:00 a.m.; stated Council is invited. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval to add Alternative #1 to the scope of work. Commissioner Matarrese stated that the blade sign is distinctive and important ; other features can be added at a later date without difficulty if money is available; requested that staff continue to Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 3 April 17, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2007-05-15 | 21 | Commissioner deHaan stated as people walk into the theater, they will look directly at the concession area; it lobby ] is a beautiful area and people should not look at the concession area; he would like to see a dummy wall in front of that [concession area], which would allow people to walk around into the concession area; that he discussed the matter with the Project Manager; a simple wall would break it up so your eyes would have to go into the rest of the area [ lobby The Development Services Director stated staff could explore the matter and bring it back to the Commission; that she would have to check with the historic architects because the lobby is being completed as a restoration. Commissioner deHaan stated what he is talking about is extremely simple. Chair Johnson questioned whether the lobby should be broken up. Commissioner deHaan stated there is a penetration going to the concession area now that was never there; he is requesting a dummy wall that people can walk around to get to the concession area; the popcorn machine would not be seen and would be buffered; the developer would understand what he is talking about. The Development Services Director stated the matter could be explored; there were conditions put on moving just door hinges. Chair Johnson stated the historic integrity of the lobby should not be disturbed. Commissioner deHaan stated it is not coming close to that; further stated $250,000 was allocated for hazardous materials and site conditions inquired whether there was a loan for the elevator and escalators. The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the amount being allocated was being taken from contingency. The Development Services Director responded the exact cost of the site work was now known; stated the developer has spent in excess of the amount the City did a fine job of crafting the Disposition and Development Agreement; the City capped its exposure. Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association Executive Director, Sp… | CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-05 | 21 | ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 10:48 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 21 June 5, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2007-06-19 | 21 | Vice Mayor Tam stated there was no written agreement; inquired whether the Museum provides documentation regarding use, artifact inventory, etc. throughout the subsidy period, to which Ms. Dileo responded documentation is provided only upon request. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether City funding was an automatic expectation every year. Ms. Dileo responded the funding was coupled with the Masonic lease. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the rent has stayed the same since 2000 except for the past year, to which Ms. Dileo responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Oak Street site was the Carnegie Library Ms. Dileo responded the Museum was in the Carnegie Library basement rent free for 30 years the Museum moved to the Recreation and Park Department site on Oak Street; improvements were made totaling $60,000 because the Museum was under the impression that the 99- year lease was iron clad; the City no longer had a place for the Museum; the Masons are also a non-profit organization; the rent was reasonable at 76 cents per square foot; now the rent is $1.76 per square foot. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Mason lease is a five- year term. Ms. Dileo responded the lease is for two years; the President advised that the Museum could sign a new, three-year lease. Mayor Johnson inquired which facility had the 99-year lease, to which Ms. Dileo responded 1327 Oak Street. Mayor Johnson stated the site is not City property; the lease was not with the City. Ms. Coler-Dark stated the City negotiated the lease to the best of her knowledge. Councilmember deHaan stated a relationship must have existed because the Recreation and Park Department took over the site. Mayor Johnson stated the City was evicted from the site by the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 10 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 19, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2007-07-17 | 21 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- - -JULY 17, 2007--7:25P. - M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:43 p.m. Commissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (07-026) Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project. The Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation on the theater, a Power Point presentation illustrating restoration work, and a brief presentation on the garage. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether trees could be planted instead of banners along the northern elevation of the parking structure. The Redevelopment Manager responded the property line is an issue; stated the property line is close to the garage i the architect does not think there would be enough room to plant trees. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether staff talked to Long's The Redevelopment Manager responded easement discussions have been lengthy; stated the construction easement is a concern because trucks drive up to the storage warehouse. Commissioner Matarrese stated the City is providing a huge benefit to Long's that he would like to see staff push for a live solution such as bamboo or Italian Cypress; requested more detail on said option. The Redevelopment Manager stated vines may be a more feasible landscape option; other options would be reviewed. Commissioner deHaan stated that other options should be reviewed because of the cost and life expectancy of banners ; the Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 1 July 17, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2007-08-07 | 21 | Commissioner Tam stated parking revenue should help enhance parking in other business districts throughout the City; $240,000 is estimated for daily parking and monthly permit revenue; inquired whether the revenue would go up proportionally if the rate is increased by twenty five cents, to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Chair Johnson inquired how long the City is committed to only a twenty-five cent increase. The Development Services Director responded forever stated the increase could be more than twenty-five cents but never less; it would not be a problem to change to less than twenty-five cents. Chair Johnson stated that an option might be to increase the street parking more than the parking structure; inquired whether opportunities are available to work with the Beauty College to ensure that students are not creating parking problems. The Development Services Director responded what is good for Park Street will end up being good for the theater; stated opportunities would be available to discuss what the City is trying to accomplish; theater spaces need to be guaranteed. Chair Johnson inquired when said discussions would take place. The Development Services Director responded discussions could take place along the way. Commissioner deHaan stated that he is having a hard time with fifty percent occupancy ; the busy time would be between 12:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. The Development Services Director stated summer and winter occupancies would be different. Chair Johnson stated that morning parking is not easy to find on Park Street; adjustments can be made, such as the number of issued permits. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether there is a provision for a second elevator. The Development Services Director responded a second elevator is not budgeted. Special Joint Meeting 5 Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission August 7, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2007-09-11 | 21 | Total City Budget: FY 2007-08 Capital Improvement 4% $287.2 Million ARRA 4% CIC 5% General Fund Enterprise 28% 6% Housing Authority 10% Other Funds AP&T 20% 23% 11 City Budget: General Fund Allocations $80.8 Million Planning & Building Public Safety 6% Pension Rec & Parks Other Police 4% 5% 9% 29% General Admin 9% Fire Public Works 27% 11% 12 6 | CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-06 | 21 | active at Independence Plaza; automobiles provide independence; paratransit is available; a bus from Chinatown shows up quite a bit. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether a car-sharing program is available, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded that he does not know. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City of Berkeley has a good car sharing program; suggested staff look into the matter. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam stated the Housing Authority estimates that it would cost $190,000 to build the Independence Plaza parking lot; inquired whether said cost would be recouped from rent increases. The Housing Authority Executive Director responded funding would be from reserves; stated reserves get refunded from grants. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether parking would be free, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether there are opportunities to acquire additional park space on the West End as opposed to east of Park Street [near Towata Park] The Housing Authority Executive Director responded the National Park Service does not allow deed restriction on an existing park; stated the additional parcel from East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) was not a park; the deed restriction needs to be placed on non-park land. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether there are opportunities to expand an existing park on the west side. The Housing Authority Executive Director responded [West End] parks or property were not identified. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired about the Coast Guard housing area, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded said area was not available at the time. Richard Neveln, Alameda, suggested that the matter be referred to the Transportation Commission. Kim Nicholis, Alameda, discussed parking. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Housing 3 Authority Board of Commissioners November 6, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2007-11-20 | 21 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - -NOVEMBER 20, 2007 -7:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:15 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider : (07-541) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case : Chow V. City of Alameda, et al. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a briefing on the status of the litigation and gave direction to Legal Counsel to defend the City. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council November 20, 2007 | CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2007-12-04 | 21 | increment would be parceled off; Merged Improvement Areas would be paid back first with tax increment from other areas; requested clarification on the matter and whether Alameda Point would be affected. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Alameda Point is in the Alameda Point Improvement Project (APIP) redevelopment area and would not be affected the Merged Area is the West End Community Improvement Project (WECIP) and Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) ; the Merged Area Bonds were issued in 2003 and were an existing condition when the DDA was approved with Catellus in 2006; the bond was sized and assumed a zero tax increment from Alameda Landing because the property is not on the tax roll; all of the tax increment in the entire project area is pledged to the repayment of the debt; typically underwriters have a debt to loan value ratio when debt is issued technically, the Alameda Landing tax increment is already pledged to the repayment of the existing obligation; the Bond was sized when there was no tax increment at Alameda Landing; the project area should have no trouble making the bond payment without Alameda Landing tax increment eventually, property taxes will be on the rolls for Alameda Landing. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam stated that some of the proposed Development Agreement (DA) amendments spread the cost and shift some of the liabilities; the staff report notes that the City's financial obligations do not increase but overall project costs increase and references just the acquisition of the property; inquired whether that is the only additional cost. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded there is a one time cost for fencing the wharf and acquisition of the property insurance; stated the 115kV obligation would not be triggered until the DA is amended to remove the project obligation; the process is sequential. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan requested elaboration on the utility assessment district; inquired whether an assessment for the wharf is … | CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2008-01-15 | 21 | The Supervising Civil Engineer gave a brief presentation. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is an obligation to notify and post in the area. The Supervising Civil Engineer responded that everyone within 300 feet of the bus stop was notified; stated notices were posted on barricades. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether any feedback has been received. The Program Specialist II responded feedback was received from two residents near the intersection of Central Avenue and Bay Street i both residents were concerned about on-street parking availability; 17 to 23 on-street parking spaces are available within half a block. Councilmember deHaan stated evening parking is not impacted. Councilmember Gilmore stated people could get ticketed if they are not gone by 7:00 a.m. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Encinal Avenue and Park Avenue bus stop is included, to which the Program Specialist II responded in the negative. David Edwards, Alameda, stated a bus stop is located at the Weber Street bi-section and Ninth Street through Central Avenue; there is a fire plug at the Weber Street bus stop the proposed metered parking space is in front of his house; having a red zone that is two car lengths or more would be an the advantage of having a bus stop at the intersection of Ninth Street and Central Avenue. westbound traffic would be easier to see [at the intersection] ; the next best spot would be across the intersection which has a driveway on either side. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Transportation Commission reviewed the matter, to which the Program Specialist II responded in the negative. Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated restrictions should be placed at all bus stops. Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Gilmore [regarding the 7:00 a.m. matter ]; stated that he does not know how Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 January 15, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2008-02-19 | 21 | happened, to which the Finance Director responded street paving. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated things are still being deferred; inquired whether Proposition 1B money is being shifted into a project that would reduce the street maintenance deficit. The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative stated staff is looking for other funding sources; more street improvements could be completed if General Fund money were used in addition to Proposition 1B money. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he wants to make sure that the public does not get the impression that everything is all right ; no one is talking about the federal deficit; the School District is suffering more than the City. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a specific list needs to be provided outlining things that are not being done. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the real concern is where the City is going from here; playing with a good estimate of what the cuts will be is important; he does not want to wait until June to receive feedback; he wants to feel comfortable in knowing what initiatives Council needs to take. The Finance Director stated the City Manager/Executive Director will lead a team of Department Heads in reviewing and gathering revenue enhancement ideas to bring to Council in a workshop setting; the expenditure side of the ledger will be reviewed also to determine what level of expenditure can be tolerated; she will have a better idea of property tax revenues on March 19. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated departments have been requested to review cuts through the end of the fiscal year; inquired how much departments are asked to trim. The Finance Director responded 1.5%; stated some departments are able to do more; reductions totaled $1.5 million. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how the cuts were made. The Finance Director responded through a strategic hiring freeze and supply and service reductions. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the Speci… | CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2008-03-18 | 21 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING TUESDAY- - -MARCH 18, 2008- - -7:25 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:48 p.m. Commissioner Torrey led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioner/Board Members deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Board Member Torrey, and Mayor/Chai Johnson - 6. Absent : None. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (08-15) - Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project. The Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation. Chair Johnson inquired whether there is money in the contingency for the parking structure façade. The Redevelopment Manager responded $50,000 has been allocated from next year's CIC budget. Chair Johnson inquired whether the elevator timeframe is uncertain. The Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the contractor's workload increased; the Cineplex developer will need to do additional work after the contractor's work is complete; State inspections cannot be done until everything is complete. Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the status of the escalator. The Redevelopment Manager responded the escalator has been installed but still needs some work. Commissioner Tam inquired whether parking structure usage has increased. The edevelopment Manager responded somewhat stated staff is working with the Park Street Business Association to increase awareness. Commissioner Matarrese stated that the Central Avenue parallel parking looks good. Special Joint Meeting Community Improvement Commission and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners March 18, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2008-05-06 | 21 | MINUTE OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - -MAY 6, 2008- - -6:00 P. M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent : None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (08-170) Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency Negotiators : Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations : All Public Safety Bargaining Units, and Management and Confidential Employees Association. (08-171) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 Number of cases One. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received an update on the status of negotiations from Labor Negotiators; no action was taken; regarding Legal, Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel regarding a matter of potential litigation; 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 May 6, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2008-06-03 | 21 | Operating Memorandum. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the existing DDA has a section that provides for an ability to do Operating Memorandum if there are technical details that the parties want to work out; the Operating Memorandum will look at property management issues and will deal with a scenario that may present itself in the future; the Operating Memorandum would deal with issues such as fewer lease revenues coming in than property management expenses and how to handle said situation. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the Operating Memorandum would come back, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam stated Section D on Page 12 notes that the developer would reimburse the CIC for the cost incurred if the City issues a demolition permit within sixty days inquired how soon the hospital demolition can start. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the demolition would have to be authorized through the budget processi stated the demolition work could commence fairly quickly if funds are authorized; Catellus has already prepared the demolition plans. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the cost estimate for demolishing the hospital, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded several million dollars. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Stargell Avenue Extension Project has gone on for years she appreciates the cooperation of the Peralta Board; inquired whether the Board approved the project. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the Board would take action on June 10. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (08-232 CC) Adoption of Resolution Authorizing and Directing the Preparation and Execution of Certain Lease Financing Documents, Authorizing the Preparation and Distribution of a Preliminary Official Statement in Connection with the Offering and Sale of Certificates of Participation Relati… | CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2008-06-17 | 21 | reviewed; the vehicle replacement policy may need adjustments. The Fire Chief stated deferring purchases would build a huge, future liability; another truck is scheduled to be replaced next year. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the total price. The Fire Chief responded an engine would cost between $400,000 to $425,000 and would have a ten to twelve-year lease. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the compliment of Fire Department staff. The Fire Chief responded nine firefighters have been hired due to retirement vacancies; currently, eight positions are unfunded; new hires will be necessary as retirements occur; otherwise, additional overtime would be created. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how much overtime would be reduced [with new hires] The Fire Chief responded average overtime covers four positions ; stated adding two to three positions per shift would be beneficial. ; money would be saved in the long run. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how said scenario is equated into percentage of overtime. The Fire Chief responded that he guesses that 60% to 70% of overtime would be saved. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the total compliment. The City Manager/Executive Director responded 110 funded positions are assumed for 2008-2009; stated 102 positions are for sworn officers, 8 are non-sworn. Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether overtime would still exist with total staff compliment, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what overtime costs would be with total compliment, to which the Fire Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority, Alameda Reuse and 11 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission June 17, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2008-07-01 | 21 | issuing a RFP for an interim operator to take care of the maintenance and the operation side so costs are reduced. Councilmember deHaan agreed to amend the motion accordingly. Councilmember Gilmore stated the interim timeframe is anticipated to be one year until a long-term RFP in place. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the amended motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes : Councilmember Matarrese - 1. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of engaging the community to seek input for the RFP for a long-term operator. Councilmember Gilmore stated the RFP should have parameters based on community and Golf Commission input. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Council gave direction to close the Mif Albright and bring back rates. Norma Arnerich, Alameda Junior Golf Club President, stated the Northern California Golf Association initiated the Kids on Course; the Alameda Junior Golf Club has jointed the Plan; Northern California Golf Association will give $8.00 back when juniors pay $1.00 to play. Councilmember deHaan inquired what would be done with the Master Plan. Councilmember Gilmore stated the Master Plan would be part of the community engagement. Mayor Johnson stated NGF brought back many items for discussion and that she appreciates all the work. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment) (08-297) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed imported scooters. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 July 1, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2008-07-15 | 21 | Chair Johnson inquired whether the Recreation and Park Commission would make recommendations to Council and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), to which the Development Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Chair Johnson stated the demand for athletic facilities has changed since the mid 1990's (08-39) - Recommendatior to authorize the Executive Director to enter into Contracts with the Park Street Business Association and the West Alameda Business Association for Fiscal Year 2008-2009. The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the CIC budget increased by 3%. The Development Services Director responded the general tax increment increased by approximately 3.5% overall ; stated the CIC budget did not increase; business associations are important to the City as an economic development engine. Chair Johnson stated the City does not spend money on business promotion; grant funding allows the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) and Park Street Business Association (PSBA) to market City businesses. Commissioner Matarrese stated the grants bolster business: the General Fund budget is impacted because sales tax is generated; questioned whether the proposed funding amount is enough; inquired whether there is a way to quantify how the City's investment correlates to an increase in sales tax. The Development Services Director responded that she did not know. Commissioner Matarrese stated said matter should be reviewed because the General Fund is impacted by investing approximately $225,000 [in the business associations]. Chair Johnson stated that she is comfortable with the grant funding increase; business districts need to fund themselves; Alameda Towne Centre pays for maintenance and other costs; PSBA and WABA spend a lot of money on marketing and promotion; shopping centers are required to be open for certain hours and days per week; the City does not have the same control over the business districts; PSBA members contribute $140,417 t… | CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-08-05.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2008-08-05 | 21 | Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the City still maintains the goal of increasing homeownership the School District surplused Island High to create very affordable rental units as a tool for recruiting teachers and employees; there is opportunity to do a lot of great things, such as meeting green standards and creating a transit village; dropping the highest number of units on the community, rather than talking about what should be there, is not in the context of what the School District and City have talked about for years. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she agrees that the Council needs to visit the issue of the best way to provide affordable housing separately; the Economic Development Commission should review the issue and make recommendation: to Council. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore - 1. ] ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 12:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission 8 August 5, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-08-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2008-08-19 | 21 | there is a land plan that represents Measure A. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded SunCal is not working on a Measure A compliant plan as part of the community process. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal would have a fallback position if the measure did not qualify. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded staff would recommend terminating the ENA at that point because there would not be a project. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal would be willing to stay in the project if the measure did not pass. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded SunCal might be willing stated the question is whether the City would be willing to keep SunCal as a partner. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what SunCal's position would be if the measure did not pass. Pat Keliher, SunCal, responded that SunCal wants to have some type of fallback plan; stated SunCal is looking at Measure A compliant plans internally. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal would still be willing to be in the process if the plan was Measure A compliant. Mr. Keliher responded that today, SunCal would not want to walk away from Alameda Point stated SunCal would like to look at other alternatives. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal was in for the long-term, to which Mr. Keliher responded of course. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore thanked SunCal and D.E. Shaw for transparency and honesty with the public; stated the City went through a very long, public process to select SunCal as the Master Developer ; D.E. Shaw has a lot of say in the term sheet provisions regarding what could potentially happen at Alameda Point ; that she will be looking very closely at the Operating Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 4 Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 19, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2008-09-16 | 21 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- - - -SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 - 7:25 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting at 8:06 p.m. Commissioner Tam led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. . ] (*08-48) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and ledevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meetings held on August 19, 2008; and Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting of September 2, 2008. Approved. (*08-49) - Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to execute an Amendment to the Master Consulting Agreement with Harris & Associates for Engineering and Construction Support Services for the final phase of the Bayport Project by adding additional budget authority in an amount not to exceed $198,000 (of which $104,000 will be reimbursed by the homebuilder for In-Tract Plan Review and Inspection) . Accepted. AGENDA ITEMS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:07 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 September 16, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2008-10-07 | 21 | Mr. Ross stated [auto] dealerships are anchors. some auto servicing businesses will close or look elsewhere, but there is demand within the City to sustain many of the uses. Vice Mayor Tam stated very few businesses have the ability to produce the same level tax revenue as auto dealerships; inquired whether Mr. Ross concurs that loss in sales tax revenue cannot be replaced with mixed uses. Mr. Ross responded auto dealerships are the main tax producing entities within cities; stated auto dealerships are abandoning small cities and moving to auto malls; replacing auto dealership revenue is very difficult; hotels, motels, and destination retail uses are possible revenue generators; said businesses prefer to be on gateway streets. Vice Mayor Tam stated that Mr. Ross noted that residential development could act as a catalyst; inquired whether work/live opportunities would differ from the City's current constraints [ordinance] Mr. Ross responded that residential development has been one of the primary driving engines for revitalization within City districts; stated recommendations are to create as much flexibility in the land use code as possible in order to attract work/live, retail, and commercial. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether office and tech opportunities would be beneficial. Mr. Ross responded that a strong office base is always good; stated Alameda has vacancies in some of the larger office parks; small, professional offices are in demand; the office market is not as strong as in the past. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether high tech could be a driving force. Mr. Ross responded that he hopes that high tech would develop office space in the future; stated small, incubator flex space is in demand now; office developments love vibrant centers. Councilmember Gilmore stated the Planning Board recommends not to allow any drive-through access on Park Street; inquired what is the thinking behind the recommendation. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 2 Redevelopment Authority, and Com… | CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2008-10-21 | 21 | The Interim Finance Director responded the matter would be visited in more detail in the future; stated some housekeeping paperwork needs to be done to make it [loans] more formal; continued the presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson requested the outstanding bonds debt balance. The Interim Finance Director stated staff would provide the debt service schedule, including a description of why the City went to the market and what was financed. Mayor/Chain Johnson stated the City needs to maintain what has been built and cannot let assets deteriorate before they have been paid off. The Interim Finance Director stated one of the things that government does not do very well is anticipate maintenance costs and roll [maintenance] costs into operations; some cities adopt policies. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City should do so [adopt a policy]. The Interim Finance Director continued the presentation. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated $38 million in the sewer fund is the asset, not cash; inquired whether $38 million is the amount it would cost to put in the sewer system. The Interim Finance Director responded in the negative; stated GASB 34 requires that a value be placed on infrastructure; stated the replacement cost would be a lot more than $38 million. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the amount should be grounded to reality requested the matter be reviewed; stated the value should be understood. The Interim Finance Director stated a GASB 34 report could be provided on the sewer and ferry systems. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the City is trying to catch up on deferred maintenance for streets and sidewalks; the City needs to have a plan and funding mechanism in place to deal with assets so that they do not crumble awayi the Council needs to know the expected maintenance needs in the near and long term for all assets, such as the sewers. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 4 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 21, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2008-12-02.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2008-12-02 | 21 | The Building Official stated staff worked with the Apartment Owners Association, structural engineers, lenders, and insurers at the last workshop. Mayor Johnson stated that she is surprised that insurance companies would insure soft story structures. The Building Official stated insurance companies have not provided a clear answer. Vice Mayor Tam inquired who attended the first workshop, to which the Building Official responded mostly apartment owners and real estate agents. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (08 -522 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Economic Development Commission. Mayor Johnson nominated Horst Breuer and Justin Harrison. (08-523 - ) Vice Mayor Tam stated that she attended the League of California Cities Board Meeting in Orange County before Thanksgiving; the Board noted that there will not be any increase in dues; there was a good session on efforts to put together a Constitutional Convention to deal with the structural and political issues on the inability of a Governor or State legislature to get the kind of budget reforms necessary to adopt a budget ; the League is trying to help local cities deal with redevelopment fund take- - aways. Mayor Johnson stated the Governor is calling a second emergency session; a fiscal emergency has been declared and opens up opportunities for the State to come after local government. (08-524) Councilmember deHaan stated the Mastick Senior Center governing Board decided to close down Sunday activity; the closure is not part of previous budget discussions. The City Manager stated Mastick Senior Center has experienced participant reduction on Sunday's since 2007; some of the programs have been moved to Saturday or Wednesday nights. (08-525 ) Councilmember deHaan stated the City has some projects that are federally funded; the wish list should be pushed. The Deputy City Manager stated the stimulus package form is Regular Meeting 21 Alameda City Council December 2, 2008 | CityCouncil/2008-12-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2009-01-06 | 21 | COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (09-019 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Historical Advisory Board and Youth Commission. Mayor Johnson nominated Donna Talbot to the Historical Advisory Board and Ellen Hui to the Youth Commission. (09-020) Councilmember Matarrese stated there was a Council Referral to have the Youth Commission look at reducing traffic congestion around schools last year the Youth Commission sent him a letter with its results; that he would provide the letter to the City Manager; the Transportation Commission should review the letter to determine if any of the suggestions could be implemented; it was quite well done and should be shared with the Council. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 11:41 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 21 January 6, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-01-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2009-02-03 | 21 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY- - - -FEBRUARY 3, 2009- - - -7:31 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting on February 4, 2009 at 12:10 a.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Board Members/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. CONSENT CALENDAR Chair Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the use of $350,000 [paragraph no. 09-05 CIC/ARRA] would be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Board Member/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ] Board Member/Commission Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*09-04 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting, and the Special CIC Meeting held on January 6, 2009. Approved. (09-05 CIC/ARRA) Recommendation to authorize the use of $350,000 of Tax Exempt Bond Funds from the Merged Area Bond (Funds 201.1 11 and 201.15) and appropriate the funds for use for the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Emergency Water Repairs and Electrical Upgrades at Park Street and Buena Vista Avenue and authorize FISC Lease Revenue for additional annual support of the Façade Grant Program. The Developer Services Director gave a brief presentation. Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore requested an explanation of the $390,000 returned from the Library. The Development Services Director stated the 2003 Merged Bond Project pledged $1 million for the Library; the Library did not use all of the money and returned $690,000; $300,000 has been spent for Special Joint Meeting Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 1 and Community Improvement Commission February 3, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-02-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2009-02-07 | 21 | The Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff knows how the amount accumulated over many years. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the intent is to use the breakdown to have the departments pay back outstanding amounts. The Interim Finance Director responded debt would not continue going forward; stated small amounts would be easy to fix; larger amounts accumulated overtime would be difficult to resolve. The City Manager noted the IT funds would be expended this fiscal year. Councilmember Tam stated that she is trying to match the seven categories in the ISF against the guiding principles, which has designations for major equipment replacement, public facilities, workers' compensation and OPEB; inquired whether there is an ability to transfer between the [ISF] funds; stated the balance of other [ISF] funds exceeds $2.6 million; inquired whether the Beltline litigation was under the risk management column and each department paid a portion. The Interim Finance Director responded only departments involved would pay. Mayor Johnson requested that the Council be provided an answer to the question about the Beltline litigation charges. The Interim Finance Director stated that she would look up the charges. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether departments that owe money to the deficit would be assessed for the amount owed, to which the Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the General Fund balance with the [deficit] amount removed would be $8.8 million minus $2.6 million. The Interim Finance Director responded it would if the amount were taken from the fund balance; stated staff is suggesting alternatives; the amount cannot be resolved in one year; $2.6 million would be a serious cut in services and programs. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she understands $2.6 million cannot be made up in one year, but the budget document should reflect the $6.6 million in true cash and should not include amounts that are needed to pay for something else. Speci… | CityCouncil/2009-02-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2009-03-03 | 21 | requested continual updates on milestones. Mr. Marshall stated a Purchase and Sale Agreement could happen late spring and would start the Target processi a binding deal would not happen until the end of the year; pursuing a Target requires a significant amount of money. Chair Johnson stated looking at phasing adjustments makes sense; that she is not hearing that Catellus is giving up on the rest of the project Target is an important tenant. Mr. Marshall stated Catellus has an alternative first phase and views the project as mixed use. Mayor Johnson inquired what would be the projected Target revenues, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded approximately $225,000. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Target would be approximately 80,000 square feet, to which Mr. Marshall responded a little larger. Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Clif Bar is still a possibility. Mr. Marshall responded that Clif Bar is pursuing another opportunity on the Island and got caught up in the peanut recall. Commissioner Tam inquired whether Catellus has no funding for the Webster Street/Wilver "Willie" Stargell Project unless the Target project moves forward, at which point Catellus would be able to leverage and capitalize the infrastructure for the street or demolition and horizontal infrastructure to provide service for Target. Mr. Marhsall responded Catellus' obligation to complete improvements to support retail commences when demolition starts; the Webster Street/Wilver "Willie" Stargell Project is required to for retail; Catellus' commitment is commensurate to the amount of initial retail. Commissioner deHaan stated times are tough; open communication is very important; Catellus is important to the City. Mr. Marshall stated that Sean Whiskeman, Catellus Vice President, is a good resource for specific questions regarding retail. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 3 March 3, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2009-03-17 | 21 | impression that revenue sources are not sufficient to meet all capital needs and maintenance costs in the long run; inquired whether funds would be compromised by trying to move funding from accounts to pay for the Willie Stargell project. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the Public Works Director noted that the Sewer Fund would not be impacted; ARRA and FISC lease revenue funds are available and sufficient funds are still available for water system upgrades. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendations. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the extension is needed regardless of whether Alameda Landing goes forward within the timeline. Councilmember/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated that he is extremely supportive of the staff recommendation; that he has concerns with potentially impacting future projects; Catellus might not move forward with Alameda Landing. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the extension is necessary whether Catellus goes forward with Alameda Landing or not. 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 8:23 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 4 Community Improvement Commission March 17, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2009-05-19 | 21 | ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 7:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lana Stoker, Acting City Clerk Acting Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 21 Community Improvement Commission May 19, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-06-16.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2009-06-16 | 21 | Councilmember Tam stated the City could lose up to $4.5 million, which was the 2007 estimate to retrofit the Carnegie Building; a paying tenant is needed for the Carnegie Building. Mayor Johnson stated that she concurs with Councilmember Tam. Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 10:00 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 16, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-06-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2009-08-03 | 21 | Special Joint Meeting at 12:35 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 Redevelopment Agency, and Community Improvement Commission August 3, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-08-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2009-10-20 | 21 | would be better reviewing the best way to spend money for the community as a whole is important. Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is glad money is being invested in the website which can be used as a tool to measure successi the internet has become the first search avenue; that he would like to receive an interim report and not wait until the end of the year to see how things are going; the City needs to be agile because of the current, unsettled financial environment; milestones need to be established. Following Ms. Marr's comments, Commissioner Tam stated the City is spending $250,000 in advertising between the four associations; having a coordinated effort in getting the most bang for the buck is important. Commissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation. Chair Johnson inquired whether Economic Development would work with the associations to pool resources. The Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated efforts are being made to collaborate a holiday event also. Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote - 5. (*09-44 CIC) Recommendation to Approve and Appropriate a $200,000 Brownfields Subgrant Agreement to Assist in the Fleet Industrial Supply Center Fire Cleanup. Accepted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (09-422 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Municipal Code by Adding Subsection 30-17 (Density Bonus Regulations) to Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Allow Density Bonus Units and Incentives or Concessions to Developers that Voluntarily Provide for Affordable Housing Units as an Element of Their Residential Development Project. Not introduced; and (09-45 CIC) Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution No. 04-127 to Reduce the Inclusionary Unit Requirement Policy for Residential Developments in the Business and Waterfront and West End Community Improvement Project Areas from at Least 25% to at Least 15%. Not adopted. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Coun… | CityCouncil/2009-10-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2009-11-03 | 21 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 3, 2009- -7:31 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 10:48 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent : None. MINUTES (09-452 CC/09-48 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on October 20, 2009. Approved. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the Minutes. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEMS (09-453 CC) Recommendation to Approve an Amended and Restated Promissory Note in the amount of $190,000 and an Amendment to the HOME Regulatory Agreement for 461 Haight Avenue Between the City and ALL Housing, Inc. ; and (09-49 CIC) Recommendation to Approve a Grant Agreement in the Amount of $80,000 and an Affordable Housing Maintenance Covenant for 461 Haight Avenue Between the Community Improvement Commission and ALL Housing, Inc. The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the cash flow would go to a positive side so that the property would be maintained. The Economic Development Director responded the positive cash flow is not extraordinary; stated there would still be a struggle but the cash flow would provide for maintenance and needed services. ouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with the condition that the property be maintained with the benefit from the payoff as well as the grant. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 3, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-11-03.pdf |
CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2009-11-17 | 21 | Matarrese; there are lots of reasons to have the matter be community driven; the biggest reason is that the public interacts with City Hall; the public complains whether or not the City is transparent; the public is in a unique position to advise the City about what is important to them. Mayor Johnson stated staff should provide a starting place. The Interim City Manager stated the wheel should not be reinvented. the question is whether the Task Force would provide feedback on what to include or whether the Task Force would be working Task Force. Mayor Johnson stated the public should provide input on what should be included. Councilmember Matarrese stated the process should be very quick; the list would be framed. Vice Mayor deHaan stated staff would be tasked with putting parameters together. Mayor Johnson stated guidelines should be provided regarding how to deal with labor negotiations. The Interim City Manager stated staff would come back with some type of construct. Councilmember Tam stated the referral suggested having a representative from the League of Women Voters serve as the facilitator, in addition to one member being appointed by each Councilmember that she has a problem with community members saying that the City has some secret plan for Alameda Point and she does not know the secret. Councilmember Gilmore stated having a League of Women Voters facilitator is a good idea. Councilmember Matarrese stated the most important thing is establishing an end date. Councilmember Gilmore stated the Task Force would not be preparing documents, just issue spotting; the list would be brought back to Council. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 November 17, 2009 | CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2010-02-16 | 21 | Speakers: Jim Pitzer; Mary Fetherolf, Alameda; William Smith, Alameda; Ashley Jones, Alameda; Rosemary McNally, Alameda; Jean Sweeney, Alameda; Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; and Dorothy Freeman. Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the City has a Contract with SunCal; that he would like to see if it is appropriate to repeat the request that was made a month or so ago, which is to request that SunCal lift the restrictions on confidentiality that exist in the current ENA; regardless of the outcome, the process would be more visible and staff would be able to communicate with the Council / Board / Commission and the electorate; the confidentiality cloak has not served the City well and he is not sure if it has served SunCal well; the request should be reiterated to SunCal. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese is requesting an action item at the next ARRA meeting. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese responded that he is requesting that the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director be directed to make the request to SunCal to release the confidentiality restriction; moved approval [of directing the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director to request SunCal to release the confidentiality restriction]. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated SunCal wrote a letter indicating that they support a more transparent process. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether an action is being taken or if the matter is being addressed as a Council/Board/Commission Communication. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese responded the matter is under the agenda item in response to the request. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated SunCal was requesting approving an addendum to the ENA, including specifics about what the addendum should look like; given that the action item was to di… | CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2010-03-16 | 21 | the other; the Interim City Manager should be directed to negotiate with both the non- profit and for profit to show the numbers for the options that do not work; then, a decision can be made. The Interim City Manager stated various scenarios could be provided, but the negotiations would take longer now. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how much time would be needed, to which the Interim City Manager responded six months. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Kemper interim management contract would be extended, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated in the interim, some of the non-profit money should be used to maintain the par 3 course to ensure that children have a place to play in the spring and summer; that he would like to see an interim contract for both Kemper and the non-profit. Councilmember Gilmore clarified that the Interim City Manager would negotiate with both entities; in the meantime, Kemper would have a short-term contract to maintain the status quo of the Mif Albright course and other two courses; meanwhile, the non-profit would continue raising money. Ms. Sullwold stated the problem is that donations have to go to a 501(3)(c) corporation in order to allow deductions; most, if not all, donations would diminish if there is not an agreement that the non-profit would operate the Mif Albright course; donations are based on whether the plan [for long-term non-profit operation] goes forward. The Interim City Manager stated the question is how long it will take to get all of the pieces together; there are too many moving parts; 90 to 180 days are needed for negotiations which should allow enough time to generate some revenue commitments; inquired whether people would not make commitments until after a deal is made. Ms. Sullwold responded the people have committed to putting money forward to a non- profit operation; stated that she does not know if commitments would be made on an expectation of getting a contract. Mr. Van Winkle stated the funding put toget… | CityCouncil/2010-03-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2010-04-06 | 21 | The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that she agrees it has to be the later [SunCal providing a copy or for the public]; after an operating pro forma is submitted, time is spent in negotiations addressing details, such as impact fees; the process is dynamic, not linear; negotiations are not done in a vacuum; things change; the question is what to do for updates; logistics can be challenging and need to be thought through. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated there are two issues going forward: what is disclosable and how is it disclosable; the community has been interested in the underpinnings of Measure B; the other issue is what prior documents SunCal will disclose, which might be more straight forward; that she assumes some of the prior documents are now static. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated in some cases, the documents are now irrelevant; stated rather than staff taking the risk of defining what is and is not [confidential], SunCal should say what is and is not [confidential]. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated the City needs to seek clarification on the logistics of how information is received and distributed; there needs to be critical thinking about what is in the City's best interest as it negotiates with the Navy; confusion could be created unnecessarily; an example is calculation of conveyance price. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Councilmember/Board Member/ Commissioner Gilmore asking for the static stuff [prior documents] is important; the public has asked for said information. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated the letter is being provided to ensure that the Council/Board/Commission understands staff is following up and trying to get clarification about disclosure, which sounds good on the surface until digging through the details and thinking strategically; the letter is also being provided to ensure that the City is not deciding what is and what is not disclosable and confidential. Mayor/Chair J… | CityCouncil/2010-04-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2010-04-20 | 21 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY--APRIL 20, 2010--7:01 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 10:18 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the recommendation to direct staff to prepare amendments to the Grand Marina Village Master Plan [paragraph no. 10-180A CC/10- 20A CIC was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*10-179 CC/ARRA/*10-19 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission Meeting Held on April 6, 2010. Approved. (10-180 CC/10-20 CIC) Recommendation to Approve a Second Amendment to the Grand Marina Village Affordable Housing Agreement Between the City, Community Improvement Commission and Warmington Homes Decreasing the Number of Affordable Housing Units from Ten to Six and Authorizing the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director to Execute the Amendment; and (10-180A CC/10-20A CIC) Recommendation to Direct Staff to Prepare Amendments to the Grand Marina Village Master Plan for a Reduction in the Inclusionary Housing Obligation and an Enhancement of City Landscaping and Paving for City Council Consideration on June 1, 2010. Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated the Grand Marina Village and Alameda Landing projects are subject to the 25% inclusionary requirement; inquired how Alameda Landing would be affected if the reduction is approved for Warmington Homes. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda 1 Reuse … | CityCouncil/2010-04-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2010-05-04 | 21 | SunCal will provide a density bonus application at this point; inquired whether a density bonus application is needed to move forward with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded a foreseeable project needs to be studied under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); stated the density bonus option needs to be studied as well as the base project, especially since SunCal submitted a letter on April 13th advising the City that the density bonus option is requested. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired when a density bonus application would normally be submitted, to which the Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded at the same time as a base project. The Planning Services Manager stated the City's ordinance is designed for a smaller project; both SunCal and the City are concerned about approving a 3,500 unit project and then having random density bonus applications pop up in the next twenty years in different locations at Alameda Point; SunCal would like to find a way to put forth some type of master density bonus application that would control where the density bonus would and would not be allowed. Mayor/Chair Johnson requested comments from Stan Brown with SunCal. Mr. Brown stated the struggle has been how to craft an application that would achieve a transit oriented plan suited for Alameda Point; SunCal came up with a Measure A compliant plan in addition to a density bonus option; SunCal could not call the application a density bonus application because the City has detailed requirements; SunCal has had some good, candid discussions with staff over the last couple of weeks regarding where densities would be, how densities would be laid out, and the criteria needed to implement individual buildings into building clusters. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he is baffled by the generalities; things seem open ended; inquired whether SunCal is comfortable with the base plan. Mr. Brown responded that he… | CityCouncil/2010-05-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2010-05-18 | 21 | Mr. Brown stated professional study results would not be known before an 18-month EIR is initiated; the process would be to start with the best judgment as to what would be an appropriate plan given the constraints; professional studies would either validate information or feedback would be received for modification. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated if less residential units and commercial square footage is wanted, it should be changed now before getting too far in the DDA negotiation process; the number can always be changed based upon the EIR findings. Mr. Brown stated another way to address the issue would be through the alternative analysis process contained within the CEQA process; SunCal has proposed a base entitlement of approximately 3,800 homes and has discussed a vision for a density/transit oriented community that could have up to 4,800 homes; studying alternatives is part of the normal CEQA process. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that being conservative is better when starting out to know if it pencils out. Mr. Brown stated SunCal has been working with staff on sensitivity economic runs at various target points; that he would be happy to run an economic model. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the project's economic tilting point is not known; a 25% Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is pretty high; questioned how it could be adjusted. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the City does not know how much tax increment financing would be needed and when; the matter should be added to the list. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the economics involve the project; it is unknown whether the project would be viable with 3,000 units or 2,500 units. Mr. Brown stated the City's 2008 study showed that the project would be greatly benefited by having more units to support ridership and support capital requirements in order to achieve the full implementation of the proposed transit solutions. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated tonight everyone is looking to get as much input as possible. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gil… | CityCouncil/2010-05-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2010-06-01 | 21 | The City Attorney stated Planning Board action is required to approve a General Plan amendment or rezoning; action cannot be taken until an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is completed; the application does not have to go to the Planning Board; however, going to the Planning Board affords another opportunity for community comment and Planning Board input. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he understands that the Planning Board has not been provided with all the information; the Planning Board does not understand the total scope of the project; that he questions the need to go back to the Planning Board; too much information is missing. The Planning Services Manager stated the matter is Council's call since there is no legal requirement for the application to go to the Planning Board. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated circling the matter back to the Planning Board may not have any value; that she does not feel there is enough financial information; she does not want to impose the issue on the Planning Board until financial information comes back in a more coherent form. The Planning Services Manager stated the intention would not be to bring all the economics back to the Planning Board; the Planning Board would be focusing on planning issues. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated recommendations on land use and transportation plans would be valuable. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the Planning Board has some of the same questions regarding financial assurances. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the project might be starting out to big and maybe the EIR should be smaller; housing units and commercial square footage could be increased if the EIR shows that more capacity would be doable. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the Planning Board was looking to Council for guidance; that she thinks the process is backwards. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she does not have a strong opinion either way; the advantage would be t… | CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2010-06-15 | 21 | issue is a legal issue; the City cannot give any more sunshine or light on the issue other than what has been said in the Supreme Court said and case law following; the issues are first amendment issues; the courts have stated that in terms of contributions, the regulation must be closely drawn to a sufficiently important interest in order to avoid a first amendment challenge; so far the only government interest that courts have held to be valid with respect to campaign restrictions is "in preventing the actuality and appearance of corruption"; Council could consider adding said phrase to the Purpose section of the ordinance; by contrast, limitations on expenditures are subject to strict scrutiny; regulation must be very narrowly tailored and government interest must be compelling; so far, the Supreme Court has rejected expenditure limits for individuals, groups, candidates, and parties; campaign contributions are treated differently because the courts find that contribution limitations entail only a marginal restriction upon the contributor's ability to engage in free communication; the courts state that expenditure ceilings impose significantly more severe restrictions on protected freedom of political expression and association; the ordinance would not limit campaign expenditures from any source because by case law and recent Supreme Court case, the City cannot do so; limitations apply to a contribution from a PAC; should a PAC make a contribution directly to a candidate, the contribution would be limited to $250; by contrast, if a PAC is expending money which may benefit a candidate, case law states that the expenditure cannot be restricted; every ordinance that has been challenged on the issue has been struck down; the ordinance was drafted very simply to only address the issues that could be safely addressed; suggested that the additional safeguard language be added; stated otherwise, the ordinance is as narrowly drawn as possible. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is for campaign reform; he voted in f… | CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-20 | 21 | expectations with respect to guarantees. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the DDA has hurdle rates whereby SunCal wants to be able to meet a 25% Internal Return Rate (IRR) and 25% profit; the CIC would not be participating in the profits until SunCal meets both the 25% IRR and 25% profit. The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated Section 7.5.2.3.1 requires the CIC to make up the difference in the event that SunCal does not receive the 25% IRR. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the last, best, and final offer is a public document, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative. Jim Musbach, EPS, stated five determination dates have been established; any cash flow over the 25% goes to the City; the City would get 30% of the cash flow; half would go to a reconciliation account; at the fifth reconciliation date, the City would have to remit money from the account to make SunCal whole at 25%; the City would have a 15% participation subordinate to a 25% return with some upside potential to get to 30%. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the City would be coming up with new cash or cash would be coming out of the project, to which Mr. Musbach responded cash would come out of the project. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what staff would like to see in the DDA. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff would recommend starting to participate sooner than both of the 25% hurdle rates. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether said information has been communicated with SunCal. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff has not had detailed discussions with SunCal regarding profit participation; the pro forma attached to the DDA shows a 20% return, which would not meet the hurdle rates; provisions were incomplete in the first draft that staff received. The Public Works Director stated staff expected to see the last, best and final offer sooner rather than lat… | CityCouncil/2010-07-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-27 | 21 | Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated there is approximately a $10 million difference in Special Revenue Funds (SRF) from Fiscal Year 2010-2011 to Fiscal Year 2011-2012; reduced revenues are expected; inquired what expenses would be cut. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded a number of the SRF are grants, bond proceeds, and CIP Funds, which will have draw downs; expenditure reductions need to be reviewed because revenues have been reduced, in terms of the gas tax and Measure B, which are coming down 10% - 20%; redevelopment funds are also in the SRF. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the SRF drop is the result of what the State is doing to the City. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated interest would go down; the State is taking redevelopment money and the City is drawing down on capital improvement funds to pay bills and finish projects. Councilmember//Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the drop includes last year's regular property tax reassessments that will hit the tax roles this year. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded in the affirmative for the redevelopment agency and General Fund. In response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam's inquiry regarding Fire and Police Department expenditures, the Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded in Fiscal Year 2008-2009, the City did not fully fund all Police positions; netting out salaries is not uncommon if a city knows there will be a large delay in vacancies; Fiscal Year 2008-2009 figures reflected the Reduction in Force (RIF) and did not include fully funding the positions; in Fiscal Year 2009-2010, all positions were funded in the Police Department; approximately $600,000 in Police personnel costs were not fully funded in the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 budget; personnel sheets have been redone to ensure that positions are fully funded; in the year now closing, departments need to absorb additional costs; … | CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2010-09-07 | 21 | Commissioner deHaan stated his concern is the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter relocation; the Animal Shelter relocation would cost between $1.2 million and $3 million; the Corporation Yard relocation would be approximately $2 million; inquired where funding would come from. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded $376,000 is budgeted for a relocation study; stated a process would be needed to outline how the City would successfully relocate and construct the facilities. The Interim Executive Director stated costs would not be known until studies are completed; the City has real estate assets that are not used to the highest, best use; conversations need to address the fact that the Animal Shelter needs to move and the Corporate Yard location is not logical; that she has some financing ideas. Chair Johnson stated the entire northern waterfront is blighted; public waterway access has been very limited. Speaker: Andy McKinley, Grand Marina and Alameda resident. Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. McKinley is using other property to satisfy parking requirements for his property. Mr. McKinley responded right now, the parking problem has no solution; stated that he is proposing everything west of the northern extension of Paru Street be excluded. Commissioner Matarrese stated the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter need to be relocated; the area is complex; that he is not sure the ENA is the solution; that he sees a couple of incompatibilities: the area has a full service marina and shops in the Alaska Packers Building, which needs repair and investment; parking needed to maintain the shops is being eaten up by development; the Boat Yard generates noise; having houses next to a boat yard would result in a collision; mixed use sounds great in an urban planning textbook, but somebody is going to lose at some point; the ENA could be a tool to see what is feasible and practical; his yardstick would measure whether a true mixed use development would work. The Interim Executive Director inquired whether t… | CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2010-10-05 | 21 | ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:26 p.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 3 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 5, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2010-11-16 | 21 | Commissioner Tam stated the Islander Motel location is better than Shinsei Gardens. Commissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:43 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and 6 Community Improvement Commission November 16, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-11-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2011-02-15 | 21 | The Acting City Attorney stated there was urgency to do the clean up; in the [DDA] the developer has the choice of whether or not to elect to do the next piece, which is why the City took care of demolition without insisting that the developer pay, with the idea that the matter would be revisited later on if the developer proceeds. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff could discuss reimbursement as part of the DDA discussions. Commissioner Tam inquired whether Catellus is receptive. Mr. Marshall responded Catellus understands how everything works; stated the topic is familiar; Catellus would put a plan together that would attempt to meet the schedule; whatever can be done to not overly burden the initial phase would be helpful in implementing the schedule; Catellus recognizes that it would have had to pay to demolish the hospital after committing to the phase that includes that part of the property; unfortunately, the costs the City incurred were exponentially higher than what Catellus would have had to pay; Catellus understands the City will want to discuss the matter. In response to Commissioner Bonta's inquiry about the size of the Emeryville Target, Mr. Whiskeman responded approximately 138,000 square feet. Commissioner Bonta inquired whether Target is aware of the schedule and whether being slated to open [in Alameda] in 2013 is consistent with Target's plans, to which Mr. Whiskeman responded Target has a very specific process to open a store and the schedule fits. Commissioner Bonta stated there has been frustration with project delays; clearly, there have been challenges; hopefully, Catellus gets the sense that the community really wants the project; that he is excited about the new energy, money and the project becoming a higher priority [under TPG]; however, nothing will speak louder than action. Commissioner Johnson inquired whether Catellus would ask for any changes to the milestones or schedule in the DDA amendments, to which Mr. Marshall responded Catellus has not contemplated … | CityCouncil/2011-02-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2011-07-19 | 21 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY--JULY 19, 2011--6:00 - P.M. Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:09 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 5. Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (11-379) Public Employment - (54957); Title: City Attorney (11-380) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency negotiators: Human Resources Director; Employee organizations: All bargaining units. (11-381) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Case Name: Petition for Local Tax Reallocation of the City of Livermore; Account Number: 099-600375, California State Board of Equalization. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore announced that regarding Public Employment, direction was provided to the Human Resources Director regarding City Attorney selection process; regarding Labor, the Human Resources Director brief the City council on negotiations with Alameda Police Officers Association, Alameda Police Management Association, and Alameda Fire Managers Association; regarding Existing Litigation, the Acting City Attorney brief the Council and was given direction. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 6:57 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 19, 2011 | CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2012-05-15 | 21 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - -MAY 15, 2012- -6:00 P.M. Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:04 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Bonta arrived at 6:08 p.m. and Councilmember Johnson arrived at 6:15 p.m.] Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (12-220) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957); Title: City Manager John Russo. (12-221) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case: City (People of the State of California, ex rel. Mooney, et al) V. Collins, et al.; Superior Court of California, Alameda County Case No. RG11593720; Lawsuit against owners of 2229-2235 Clement Avenue to abate nuisance, dangerous conditions, blight; and Name of Case: Collins V. City of Alameda City; Superior Court of California, Alameda County Case No. RG07310684; Owners of 2229-2235 Clement Avenue in 2007 challenged the City's General Plan and zoning after the City Council rejected the owners' development proposal. (12-222) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency Negotiators: Holly Brock-Cohn, Human Resources Director, and Masa Shiohira, Contract Labor Negotiator; Employee Organizations: Management and Confidential Employees Association; Anticipated Issues: All (Wages, Hours, Benefits, and Working Conditions). Following the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore announced regarding Performance Evaluation, the Council; regarding Existing Litigation, the Council and regarding Labor, the Council Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:04 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 15, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2012-06-19 | 21 | On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Gilmore provided an overview of 2053 Lincoln Avenue. Councilmember deHaan stated a payment plan was not offered; inquired whether the property owner would move forward with a payment schedule. Mr. Lopes' daughter stated that she is willing to pay $1,000 for the next two months to get the permit and following that, will make payments on the $12,000; begged the lien not be placed on the house. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 2053 Lincoln Avenue should be sent back to staff to give time to set up requirements for payment. Mayor Gilmore stated there is a promise on the record to make payments. Councilmember deHaan moved approval of 90 days and direction to staff to work out a payment schedule. Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the motion is to give 90 days to work out a plan for coming into compliance and a payment schedule. Vice Mayor Bonta clarified there would be a moratorium during the 90 days so that no additional citations would be imposed. The City Manager stated Mr. Lopes indicated PG&E said the gas lines are fine. Mr. Lopes stated that he does not have a problem with putting in the valves; City staff saw pictures and said the material was not good, however, PG&E indicated that the materials is being used everywhere instead of metal pipe. Mayor Gilmore requested the motion be amended to include that the gas valve and material of the piping to ensure City requirements are met. The Chief Building Official stated said matter would be addressed as part of the inspection process once a permit is issued; the gas lines have to be unburied to do the inspection; a test is done to ensure the gas line does not leak and the material is proper and will not rot. Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Lopes will not come back and argue that PG&E said the material is fine, to which Mr. Lopes responded that he understands. Vice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Johnson inquired whether there is an indication that … | CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2013-04-02 | 21 | (13-144) Recommendation to Implement the Biological Opinion on the Proposed Naval Air Station Alameda Disposal and Reuse Project by Approving (1) a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by and between the United States of America, Acting by and through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of Alameda for Funding of the Predator Management Plan; and (2) a Memorandum of Agreement by and between the United States of America, Acting by and through the Department of Veterans Affairs and the City of Alameda for Implementing Lighting Measures for the Protection of the Endangered Least Tern. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the MOU with US Fish and Wildlife Service pledges an adequate funding mechanism to ensure predator management activities are provided in perpetuity from March 25th through August 5th, the breeding season; however, February 27th is also mentioned; the City also entered into an agreement with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to preform predatory management activities for the next three years; inquired whether the City has funding responsibility in perpetuity, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative. In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's further inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the contract with USDA would come back to Council assuming it could be continued. Councilmember Tam stated the estimated annual cost is $24,500; a 30-day reserve is required; funds come from lease revenues, not the General Fund; inquired whether the funds would come from lease revenue in perpetuity; and whether lease revenues would not continue in perpetuity. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded a provision in the MOU contemplates transfer of the obligation to a third party subject to a review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which would want an endowment or some sort of agreement with a private entity ensuring that predator management services wou… | CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2013-04-16 | 21 | Alameda Landing store would help the South Shore store and views the store as an opportunity to capture additional sales on the West End as well as future growth and extending beyond Alameda into Oakland; the two stores in Alameda do extremely well; all grocery stores in Alameda over perform based on an average basis. Councilmember/Agency Member inquired whether the choice may be associated with future residential development, to which Mr. Whiskerman responded in the affirmative; stated future growth on the West End is very strong draw. Councilmember/Agency Member Tam explained that she recently learned about Five Guys and In-N-Out Burger; stated that she is not opposed to having a hamburger establishment. Councilmember/Agency Member Chen stated that he welcomes Safeway; he has not heard any opposition; Safeway stores are over producing due to being well run; that he was hoping for an Asian market; inquired how the Safeway would cut into Lucky's profits; stated freedom of choice with two grocery stores provides residents with better prices and variety. Mr. Whiskeman responded the vast majority of the grocery stores are over performing; stated Lucky's is the only store currently serving the West End; Safeway provides another option; determining the impacts on Lucky's is difficult. Councilmember/Agency Member Chen stated the potential sales tax revenue which would be generated is exciting. Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated Lucky's may have a tendency to take customers for granted since it is the only West End grocery store; hopefully, competition might end said tendency and Lucky's might improve in the face of competition; Alameda consumers, particularly those in the West End, would be the winners. Vice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Safeway lifestyle store will differ from Lucky's; agreed with the Mayor/Chair; Safeway and the Encinal Market improved when Trader Joe's opened at South Shore; Alameda has other choices, such as Nob Hill Market and the Market Place; West End residents might be driving across the… | CityCouncil/2013-04-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2013-07-23 | 21 | The City Manager stated a solution would not be presented in September; only the trust fund and additional information about Beverly Hills would be presented in September. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether information requested would be provided, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated in September, staff would address the specific questions asked; theoretically, if bargaining units indicate there is no interest in the voluntary buyout, he would inform Council in September and a study would not be needed; an entire solution would probably not be presented to the Council until early spring; the dialog will take a long time because the situation is remarkably complex; noted the last MOUs were done quickly because there was a framework; stated charting the next round together is going to take quite a while; having a two year budget allows staff to devote resources to the problem during the time a budget is not being prepared. Councilmember Chen stated the dialog is just beginning; the City is not limited to the nine solutions; inquired whether other solutions raised would be considered, to which the City Manager responded that he expects and hopes there will be other solutions. The Financial Director noted coming up with estimates on the nine proposed solutions may take a little bit longer than September to obtain. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to understand which rolling blackouts the Council and public are interested in; the City has to look at all the different solutions on the revenue side and expenditure side. * (13-367) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the remaining agenda items after 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes: Councilmember Tam - 1. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of requesting additional information on the trust fund and authorizing the City Manager to initiate informal discussions with … | CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf |
CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2014-07-15 | 21 | I wish Alameda would have rent control. I love Alameda but I think I will soon be pushed to Oakland. But at least Oakland is rent controlled. It's hard to save money to move into a bigger spot when you're on a fixed income and know you will be getting an increase every year. Rent is very high for us. Student and can't afford to pay more and have to look for new apartment also because roommate is getting married. Can't find affordable housing. If increases persist in the neighborhood in which I live will change. Community will change. I don't want rent increase. I am saving up money to send my kids to private school and buy a Mercedes SUV. Our landlord tried to illegally raise our rent by $100 three months after we moved in, on a year lease rental. in the past two years my rent has increased 300.00 Already high and only lived here less than a year and half. Due to losing my home and fear of foreclosure was rushed into finding a rental and only could only find a 2 bedroom. My daughter was in her senior year of high school so that and many reasons we wanted to stay in Alameda as it is HOME. Increase rent but still does not maintain property. Or respond in timely manner. Ex: Fridge not working I had to replace. Broken Faucet - I paid for repairs. We are able to handle the current rate, but have concerns if it should continue annually. My husband has had a difficult time maintaining employment though he is a professional. His age does not work in his favor. I am establishing a practice having moved here knowing no one. We market ourselves constantly, but have concerns regarding our ages. We are both on social security. Originally my rent was to be increased by 50% ($400.00), but after all the renters of this property having gone to the Alameda Housing Authority, My rent was cut back by $100.00. That was the lowest they said they would go. Originally they agreed to a 6 month lease, when it came time to renew the lease, instead of providing a 1 year lease as was the "talk" from representatives for XXX, they siad they we… | CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2014-12-02 | 21 | The City Planner stated the amendment specifies the maximum units to be built on the land owned by the developer is limited to 380. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like an alternative amendment not to allow development of Parcel B or C. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned Councilmember Daysog's amendment would eliminate the 31 low and very low affordable housing units. Councilmember Chen inquired whether the units could be added back if Parcel B is acquired in the future, to which Councilmember Tam responded in the affirmative; stated a future Council can approve adding the units back. Mayor Gilmore stated Councilmember Tam would like the project to be viable in the event Parcel B is not acquired by the developer. Councilmember Tam concurred with the Mayor; stated the number of affordable housing units would be preserved. The City Planner clarified that the number of affordable units would not change, but there would be a reduction in market rate units. The City Attorney stated the DA does not commit the City to conveying Parcel B; Parcel B is identified as consideration for the Clement Avenue extension; if Parcel B is removed from the DA it might affect the benefit. In response to the City Attorney's inquiry, Mayor Gilmore stated there is no change to the Master Plan or the DA, the Council is just stating that in the event the City parcel is not conveyed to the Developer, the project could still move forward and provide the affordable housing, reducing the number of units from 414 to 380. The City Planner clarified the process; stated at a future date, the Developer and the HA would ask the City to convey land to the HA; the developer would then convey their portion of Parcel B to the HA; the HA would own all of Parcel B; with the amendments proposed by Councilmember Tam, the developer would still be responsible for all 55 affordable housing units and limited to 380 units on the land they own. *** Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 1:44 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 1:58 a.m. *** C… | CityCouncil/2014-12-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-01-20.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2015-01-20 | 21 | 24 years and getting new blood in is good; approving the contract also saves the City approximately $32,000 over five years. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. *** (15-057) Mayor Spencer inquired what Council thinks about addressing the balance of the agenda. Councilmember Daysog suggested continuing the referrals to tomorrow; stated Council will be fresher and the public will be better served. The City Attorney inquired whether staff and Council agree to continue all remaining referrals to the Special Meeting on January 21st. Mayor Spencer responded the referrals should go first; other items that cannot wait could also be discussed tomorrow. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the City Attorney stated there should be a motion to continue items to a specified date. The City Manager stated the quarterly reports [paragraph nos. 15-054, and 15-067 CC/15-001 SACIC and the bond report [paragraph no. 15-058 could be continued to February 3, 2015. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the remaining items [the Council Referrals and Council Communications Item] to the Special Meeting on January 21st , except for the quarterly reports and the bond report. Mayor Spencer clarified Council Referrals and Council Communications are being continued to January 21st. Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Matarrese - 1. Mayor Spencer stated the January 21st meeting would convene at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. (15-058) Recommendation to Accept Report on Sale of Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda 2014 Bonds. (Continued to February 3, 2015) Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 20 January 20, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-01-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2015-01-21 | 21 | The Assistant City Manager stated as far as he is aware a Council vote is not needed to have a representative attend East Bay Division meetings. The City Clerk stated the East Bay Division asked who would be the City's the voting delegate. Mayor Spencer stated there are dinner meetings; the East Bay Mayors also have monthly dinner meetings. The Assistant City Manager stated according to the email, it is the East Bay Division of the League, not the State; the next meeting is the 29th The City Clerk stated the League is asking who would be the voting delegate. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the voting delegate is for the annual conference, the City Clerk responded the City always had the same person and never broke it into two people. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would attend meetings with former Councilmember Tam; the League may want to know who would be the voting delegate now even though the conference is not until September because there are often emails sent about pending legislation; the League does a very good job of keeping in touch with the Council throughout the year. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is happy to serve as the voting delegate and the practice could continue the way in which Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft worked with former Councilmember Tam; he and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft could work together. Mayor Spencer stated that she would want a role in the East Bay Division. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can work that out. The Assistant City Manager stated the City should get clarification. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the matter should be brought back, to which Mayor Spencer responded in the negative; stated Council needs to make a decision; a vote is needed for the League of California Cities voting delegate; she was informed the City has a liaison and an alternate. The City Clerk stated the email indicates an election of Executive Committee members would be held at the January 29th East Bay Division meeting; in order to be on the Executive Committee, perh… | CityCouncil/2015-01-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2015-02-17 | 21 | The City Manager stated there will be an oral report on the spill at the next Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT (15-141) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:25 a.m. in memory of Mildred Parish Massey and Tim Scates. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 February 17, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-02-17.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-04-07.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2015-04-07 | 21 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING TUESDAY--APRIL 7, 2015- -6:59 P.M. Mayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Agency Members Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Mayor/Chair Spencer - 4. Absent: Vice Mayor/Agency Member Matarrese - 1. Oral Communications None. Consent Calendar Councilmember/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Agency Member Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor/Agency Member Matarrese - 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (15-208 CC/15-008 SACIC) Update on the Long Range Property Management Plan (LRPMP). Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:01 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 of the City Council and the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission April 7, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-04-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-05-05.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2015-05-05 | 21 | ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:08 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 21 May 5, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-05-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2015-05-19 | 21 | state which doubles the cost; a program has to have $800,000 homes to generate revenue; other challenges include infrastructure related problems, affordable housing, and transportation; meeting the objectives residents want is a struggle; the project is very tight and loading on new objectives is difficult. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should not lose sight of solutions that can be done now; she appreciates all of the updates which give Council more information to make an informed decision. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated negotiations are not over; he hopes Council's input is being heard; the Mayor raised issues that stretch the envelope but are all points that need to go back to the bargaining table; Council has an obligation to deliver and fulfill its promise to the community. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (15-354) Council Oddie announced that he attended the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (ACWMA) programs and administration meeting last week and discussed expansion of the reusable bag ordinance. Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether ACWMA discussed extending the ordinance to stores other than grocery, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative; stated the ordinance could apply to other stores, just not restaurants; that he will ask for Council guidance before voting. ADJOURNMENT (15-355) There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 1:47 a.m. in memory of B.B. King. 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 19, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-05-19.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-06-02.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2015-06-02 | 21 | 290 Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments to honor Mr. Tam. Councilmember Daysog extended his condolences to the family and made brief comments. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated it is fitting to adjourn the meeting in Mr. Tam's memory. Mayor Spencer stated she was honored to serve with Neil Tam on the School Board. There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting in memory of Mr. Tam at 9:06 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 June 2, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-06-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2015-09-01 | 21 | 357 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY--SEPTEMBER - 1, 2015- -5:30 P.M. Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:30 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5. [Note: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 5:32 p.m. and Councilmember Daysog arrived at 5:52 p.m.] Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (15-494) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); City Negotiator: Elizabeth D. Warmerdam; Employee Organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW), Electric Utility Professional Association of Alameda (EUPA), Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit (PANS), and Alameda Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA); Under Negotiation: Salaries and terms of employment (15-495) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: Two (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action) Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer announced that regarding Labor, direction was given to staff and regarding Anticipated Litigation direction was given to staff on two cases. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:58 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 September 1, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-09-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-09-15.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2015-09-15 | 21 | Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the mid-cycle budget review is a more appropriate time to review the topic. Mayor Spencer stated she would like the matter come back for Council review. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the recommendation with the understanding that benefits for part-time employees would be discussed at the mid-year budget cycle. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5. Economic Uncertainty/Contingency: Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the balance [$3,460,500] of the contingency. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous voice vote - 5. PERS smoothing/OPEB for existing retirees: Vice Mayor Matarrese requested a detailed report on whether the funds will be held in an account with the rest of the General Fund, untouched by policy and unable to get a return on the investment, or be treated as an irrevocable trust so it can be invested and provide a revenue stream. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated $5 million set aside last year in the contingency fund was used for contributions in the negotiations for public safety. Councilmember Daysog stated his hope in dealing with PERS smoothing combined with OPEB, is that the 1079 and 1082 pension accounts be evaluated; as they get drawn down, the savings generated could be redirected to pay for the trust. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested Council vote in principle to support the $6 million appropriation to the two funds to include the request articulated by Vice Mayor Matarrese to bring recommendations back to Council on how the funds will be deposited, invested, and get a sense of the earnings. Mayor Spencer stated she would not support the suggestion. Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of setting aside $6 million for PERS and OPEB, with a staff report back to Council with recommendations on how to best allocate the $6 million. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote: Ay… | CityCouncil/2015-09-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2015-10-06 | 21 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY--OCTOBER 6, 2015- -5:30 P.M. Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:31 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5. Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (15-569) 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) (15-570) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff- City Initiating Legal Action) (15-571) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); City Negotiator: Elizabeth D. Warmerdam; Employee Organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245; (IBEW), Electric Utility Professional Association of Alameda (EUPA), Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association, Non-Sworn (PANS), Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA); Under Negotiation: Salaries and terms of employment Following the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer announced that regarding exposure to litigation, the settlement of a dispute was discussed and direction was given to staff; regarding initiation of litigation, the Council discussed authorization to pursue litigation and direction was given to staff; and regarding labor, direction was given to staff. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:47 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 October 6, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-10-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2015-10-20 | 21 | peace; expressed concern over the use not being the highest and best use; stated it is a great piece of property and Council should do something wonderful with it: Karen Bey, Alameda. Mayor Spencer inquired that Matson previously stated they had 30 containers for moving, now they are requesting 36 containers. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the lease is for 10 years; the process to build out the Base is a 20 to 30 year process; Google is looking to expand their operation in the building Matson is looking to vacate; the lease would bring in decent revenue while Alameda Point development moves forward. Mayor Spencer inquired how many jobs would be created by this move. The Economic Development Division Manager responded there will be no jobs created, there are currently 6 employees who are Alameda residents; Matson tries to limit the number of people coming in and out of their facility. Councilmember Oddie stated Google wants to expand into Matson's current space at Building 23 after Matson moves to the new site; inquired whether Google expansion would increase jobs. The Economic Development Division Manager responded the company moving into Building 23 anticipates creating over 100 new jobs. Councilmember Oddie stated if Matson remains in the current site then the possibility of 100 new jobs would be lost; asked the Mayor if she is satisfied with the limit of 36 containers stored in the space identified. Mayor Spencer responded that she does not understand why 30 containers being are used because of the move and now Matson is requesting 36 to do business; stated there is a disconnect in the number of containers. The Chief Operations Officer-Alameda Point responded businesses like to have flexibility for special circumstances that might exceed normal and Matson would like the lease to reflect that. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding the average number of containers in the last 5 years, the Economic Development Division Manager stated Matson representative stated 30. Mayor Spencer stated there has n… | CityCouncil/2015-10-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2015-11-04 | 21 | 501 Councilmember Oddie questioned the legality of doing so; discussed the State process; provided an example of a nuisance eviction. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he is proposing an ordinance for cases not covered under State law. Councilmember Oddie questioned whether the RRAC has the skill set to act as judges; stated there is a procedure in law to evict tenants for cause evictions, which is the purview of judges. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated no fault cases are when the eviction is done at no fault of the tenant; one problem is tenants are receiving 30 and 60 day notices so that landlords can increase rent, which is allowed in Alameda; Alameda does not require landlords to have a reason to vacate someone, which she would like to see. The Assistant City Attorney noted the eviction for cause could be reported to the Housing Authority for tracking but questioned the RRAC hearing eviction for cause cases; stated just cause can be set up with a formula and criteria. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry whether notices to terminate would not go through the RRAC, the Community Development Director stated staff is proposing keeping rent increases under the purview of the RRAC and layering on a just cause eviction and relocation processes separate from the RRAC to reduce the fear factor and allow people to feel comfortable pursuing the RRAC mediation process; staff has sufficient direction to craft the ordinances; the last question to address tonight is the proposed moratorium. In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Oddie stated that he thought the City could keep the RRAC to mediate cases under 8%. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated Council can allow the RRAC to mediate any rent increase case and also require the landlord to bring the matter to the RRAC if the increase is above a specific percent. In response to Councilmember Oddie's further inquiry, the Assistance City Attorney stated requiring a landlord to prove a need to go above… | CityCouncil/2015-11-04.pdf |
CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2015-12-15 | 21 | 555 Mayor Spencer nominated John Roderick for appointment to the RRAC. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 11:25 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 December 15, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2016-01-05 | 21 | Councilmember Oddie inquired whether a 20% rent increase for a single family is considered a constructive eviction, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the issue could be mediated by the RRAC. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not want to see exceptions made for paying relocation assistance; which places some tenants at a disadvantage. Mayor Spencer concurred with Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft; stated having more time is more important than cash for a lot of tenants; having the option is important. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, Mayor Spencer stated the proposal is based on years of tenancy; she prefers straight time. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated giving consideration to longer term tenants is reasonable. Mayor Spencer stated she would treat all tenants the same because tenants with leases expect to be there longer than a year. Councilmember Oddie stated a tenant on a month-to-month lease terminated in 30 days could get a windfall. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding the binding arbitration process, the Community Development Director stated the RRAC would vigorously disagree with the assertion that there were formal or informal guidelines about the 10% rent increases; the RRAC does the mediation case by case. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether anything indicates having a binding arbitration process would constrain excessive rent increases. The Community Development Director stated there are two points behind the logic of binding arbitration: 1) having an option for a binding arbitration process may be an incentive; the option would increase the likelihood to agree to a mediation process and the outcome of the mediation; 2) binding arbitration would be an evidentiary proceeding where documents would be submitted; expertise would be required to understand the business model, creating a level of rigor; the two parts could make the arbitration process successful. In response to Councilmember Daysog, the Community Deve… | CityCouncil/2016-01-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2016-02-02 | 21 | Read points outlined in the letter submitted by Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC): Catherine Pauling, ARC. *** Mayor Spencer called a recess and reconvene 12:02 a.m. and reconvened at 12:06 a.m. Stated rent comes in on one hand and goes right out for costs; when the economy is bad, no one helps landlords recoup the vacancy cost; he is against rent control: Malcolm Lee, Landlord. Stated rent control started at 8% and now it is at 5%; landlords have a lot of expenses; urged Council to have consideration for landlords: Tony Charvet, Landlord. Mayor Spencer stated the proposal is not a 5% cap, it is a trigger to require going to the RRAC. Expressed how imposing a cap when the market is good is not fair; suggested Council look at how other cities handle rent control; stated Redwood City has incentives for landlords who have volunteer rent control: Chunchi Ma. Stated more time is needed; urged using the RRAC; suggested going case by case; stated rent control will put the mom and pop landlords out of business: Lester Cabral, Alameda. Inquired who would pay the cost of arbitration, the landlord or tenant; stated costs for repairs are high: Dan Wang, Alameda. Questioned how rent control would affect tax revenue; stated having more laws and restrictions makes it hard to run a business: Meina Young, Landlord. Stated property owners should not be guaranteed a raise every year; she will not get a 10% raise every year: Tristen Schmidt, ARC. Stated mom and pop landlords should get exemptions; rent control should be income based; historic properties should have an exemption: Rosalinda Corvi, Alameda. Stated he is a mom and pop landlord and does not think it is fair to be put in the same category as the large 50 to 100 unit owners; he feels the RRAC works well and should not be changed: Lawrence Quintero, Landlord. Stated if he had to do earthquake retrofitting and had to evict the whole building the just cause eviction would now allow him to do so; rent control should be case by case: Dan Zhang, Landlord. Regular Meeting Alameda C… | CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2016-02-16 | 21 | lease. Councilmember Oddie stated Subsection B was specifically added because if the tenancy is terminated and relocation is triggered, there is no requirement to offer a lease. The Community Development Director stated if notice is given that the landlord will terminate at the end of the lease period, relocation assistance does not need to be offered. Councilmember Oddie stated the wording is not in Subsection B and is missing an expiration; the policy is not ongoing; it is a one year cooling off period. Mayor Spencer inquired if Councilmember Oddie is referring to within a year of today's date. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there should be a clause to offer a one year lease in the first year following adoption of the ordinance. The Assistant City Attorney stated placing said clause in the ordinance might be a conflict; if the offer of the first lease is tied with a rent increase, the notice may not happen in the first year. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if Subsection B and C are going to be merged. The Community Development Director stated Subsection B is going to be left as is and the phrase that the offer would be in conjunction with a rent increase would be added to Subsection C. Mayor Spencer stated the landlord has to get something; only upon a rent increase, should landlords have to offer a one year lease. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated tracking will be difficult. Mayor Spencer stated a trust fund does not address the problem and does not help tenants; the ordinance is allowing no cause evictions but the tenant would get something in return. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Housing Authority has proposed doing workshops and the first year will be a learning curve. Mayor Spencer stated the housing provider must provide the program administrator, at the start of the new tenancy, the name and contact information, a copy of the lease, and the amount of the rent the new tenant will be charged; she is concerned with the name and address being public information; inquired how the City can protect … | CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2016-03-01 | 21 | Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he feels strongly about the mediation process; the ordinance is going down the wrong path; there are some good points; Council could monitor and change anything, but in the core, mediation has been successful. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is difficult to place value on the statistics; the amount of people who were too intimidated to use a process that had no teeth cannot be measured; Council has now given some teeth to the mediation process; she would like the ordinance to go forward. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding CEQA compliance, the Assistant City Attorney stated the passing of the ordinance is exempt from CEQA and the City Attorney stands behind the determination. The Assistant City Attorney stated the Housing Element does address the issue clearly; the ordinance does not have any direct impact on any physical or environmental situations; the ordinance deals with rent and has no environmental concerns, is not a project, and is exempt under CEQA. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated Government Code Section 1090 is not applicable to the action Council is taking tonight. *** (16-115) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m. Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Spencer stated that she plans to support the ordinance as is; thanked Council for exercising best judgement to meet the needs of the community; stated the ordinance is a balanced, measured approach, which Council still has the ability to revise. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved final passage of the ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by (A) adding Article XV to Chapter VI concerning review of rent increases applicable to all rental units and rent stabilization applicable to certain rental units and concerning limitations on evictions and the payment of relocation assistance applicable to all rental units, (B) amending Section 2-23.4 concerning the dutie… | CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2016-06-07 | 21 | Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk and Secretary, SACIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission June 7, 2016 7 | CityCouncil/2016-06-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-06-21.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2016-06-21 | 21 | The Fire Captain stated the people in the group do not necessarily do all the work; there are times when the meetings are held to provide guidance and delegate to other work groups. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry on the frequency of the meetings, the Fire Captain stated the ordinance requires meetings twice a year but there is history of quarterly meetings. Mayor Spencer inquired when the last time quarterly meetings took place, to which the Fire Captain responded 2008. Mayor Spencer inquired if it is being recommended that the Mayor or Council will not be part of the Disaster Council. The Fire Captain responded that is as the ordinance is written. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the participants will continue to be similar to the past composition. The Fire Captain responded the persons on the list are counterparts to Alameda's emergency managers. Mayor Spencer stated other cities designate the Mayor as the Chair; she does not agree with not continuing to designate the Mayor as Chair for the City of Alameda Disaster Council. Councilmember Daysog stated there are four provisions that relate to the role of the City Council in the event of emergency; the Mayor has a role in the real-time context of an emergency, not during planning; the City Charter powers contemplate role of the Mayor in operation activities; the fix is to simply insert the language "subject to Sections 3-12 and 6-1 of the City Charter"; the director will work within Charter Section 3-12 which identifies the process by which the City Council can declare a state of emergency. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Section 2.24 to Article II of Chapter II related to emergency organization and creating the City of Alameda Disaster Council as required by State Law to obtain legal recognition as an official emergency organization. Councilmember Daysog offered an amendment to add the language "subject to Sections 3-12 and 6-1 of the City Charter, which request the City Council … | CityCouncil/2016-06-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2016-07-05 | 21 | Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Mayor Spencer stated that she supports putting the City ordinance on the ballot with revisions and keeping the sunset date; she is concerned the other initiatives would be on the ballot and the City's would not; there is confusion; citizens think the Council ordinance just dies if there is a tenant measure and a landlord measure. Councilmember Oddie stated that he is not ready to make a decision; he does not know if either initiative will qualify; one of the strengths of the City ordinance is the opportunity to fix it when it is broken; the two competing initiatives make doing so difficult; he does not think staff time should be spent on something that may be moot in three months. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the matter could come back on July 19th, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated two initiatives may end up on the ballot and adding a third is not necessary. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the City Clerk stated the random sample check of signatures on the landlord initiative will be done by July 27th Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Council would make a decision on July 19th regarding having a regular meeting in August, to which Mayor Spencer responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog stated no action regarding the landlord initiative is needed at this point. Vice Mayor Matarrese reiterated his motion to not place the City ordinance on the ballot. Councilmember Daysog withdrew his second. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which failed by the following voice votes: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2. Noes: Councilmember Daysog and Mayor Spencer - 2. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1. Councilmember Oddie moved approval of discussing the City measure on July 19th. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion which carried by the following voice votes: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese -… | CityCouncil/2016-07-05.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2016-09-20 | 21 | (16-473) Recommendation to Provide Direction on the Approach to Phasing and Disposition of Development in the Main Street Neighborhood (MSN) at Alameda Point, including Review of the Draft Phasing Chapter in the MSN Specific Plan. The Redevelopment Project Manager and Base Reuse Director gave a Power Point presentation. Urged Council to support the phasing plan; stated the plan will allow the Alameda Point Collaborative to move forward and put an end to homelessness: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative. Stated that she supports the phasing plan because the space will provide jobs; Alameda Point is a jewel; encouraged Council to support the phasing plan and create more jobs at Alameda Point: Karen Bey, Alameda. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the 67 units are leveraging market rate housing or are the 67 units themselves the market rate housing. The Base Reuse Director responded the 67 units are part of the Collaborative project that will be very-low units; the market-rate development is financing the units' infrastructure; the adjacent units will not need to provide the low and very-low requirements; the plan is a combined project. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the 67 units are being leveraged to meet the low and very-low income requirements, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the 25 moderate and 67 very-low income units make 92 out of 310 units affordable, which is about 30%; he would like any developments to reach the 30% mark for affordable housing; he would like a plan to auction the units off individually; the zoning requirement should be clear to provide a transition between the job generating area. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a limit on how many houses can be built; inquired whether the 67 units are being subtracted from the total or if the units have to come out of some future development's allocation; inquired whose housing allocation the extra housing units would come from. The Base Reuse Director responded the City… | CityCouncil/2016-09-20.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2016-10-18 | 21 | Vice Mayor Matarrese responded the private-partnerships is not imbedded in the agreement, it is more of a direction to staff that there continues to be discussion about public-private partnerships. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese would accept a friendly amendment to add the items regarding the private-partnerships mentioned previously. Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the affirmative. Mayor Spencer inquired whether cost will be evaluated to see how much the program is costing the City. The City Manager responded evaluating costs is very difficult because of the types of trades and the market. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (16-537) (A) Introduction of Ordinance Approving the Lease of Building 21, Located at 2601 Monarch Street at Alameda Point, with St. George Spirits, Inc., a California Corporation for: (1) A Ten-Year Term With One Five-Year Extension Option; (2) An Option to Purchase the Property for $8 Million (or $7.9 Million if a Restaurant is Constructed Within 2 Years of Lease Commencement); and (3) An Authorization for the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease. [Requires Four Affirmative Votes]; and (B) Recommendation to Consent to a Sublease Between St. George Spirits, Inc., a California Corporation, and Heads, Hearts, Tails, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, for a Portion of the Leased Space. [In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (c) - Existing Facilities.] Introduced. The Assistant Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is more information regarding the sublease with the third party vendor. The Assistant Community Development Director responded the third party vendor Heads, Hearts, Tails, LLC, would sell products on site. Mayor Spencer inquired whether the lease has criteria on the restaurant, suc… | CityCouncil/2016-10-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2016-11-01 | 21 | CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (16-572) The City Manager stated the Del Monte groundbreaking would be on November 14th from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; the maker's space at Alameda Point - Building 8 is moving along as scheduled; there are currently good candidates for the recruitment for the General Manager position at Alameda Municipal Power (AMP); reminded everyone to go out and vote. Mayor Spencer inquired what the time is for the Alameda Collaborative Anniversary event. The City Manager responded 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA None. COUNCIL REFERRALS (16-573) Consider Directing the City Manager to Initiate and Begin the Process with the Planning Board to Propose Revisions to the Ordinance and Code Sections Defining Alameda's Inclusionary Housing for Residential Development. (Vice Mayor Matarrese) The City Manager showed a slide outlining staff activities related to all the referrals on the agenda. Mayor Spencer inquired whether a study session is separate from a regularly scheduled Council meeting. The City Manager responded that staff could have a special meeting on the matter instead of hearing the matter at a regular Council meeting. Councilmember Oddie stated two of the referrals have pending zoning or project applications; inquired to what extent could Council weigh in on projects in process. The City Manager responded the discussion of mixed-use zoning Citywide would be more global. Councilmember Oddie stated the City should not put itself at any legal risk by modifying any processes already in place. The City Manager stated the Council has the discretion to determine quantity and types of housing units within the same zoning district; staff is not changing the zoning or the rules. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 1, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-11-01.pdf |
CityCouncil/2016-12-06.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2016-12-06 | 21 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING UESDAY--DECEMBER - 6, 2016--6:59 P.M. Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Absent: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (16-607) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB). Mayor Spencer stated Council takes no action for the nomination of the Social Service Human Relations Board. The City Clerk made brief comments. Mayor Spencer stated that she and staff interviewed several applicants for the SSHRB; a sentence was added to the press release: "current efforts include development of a comprehensive community needs survey playing an advisory role in the development and implementation of Alameda's Homeless Action Plan and helping facilitate a community dialogue in response to recent bias motivated events affecting the Alameda community and beyond;" nominated Sherice Youngblood and outlined her qualifications. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the City Clerk stated a press release regarding the HAB vacancy went out today; the nomination will be on the December 20th Council agenda; the Mayor directs staff when to place nominations on the agenda. Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the Mayor's decision to place nominations on the agenda is the reason why the two nominations are being treated inconsistently. The City Clerk responded the Mayor makes the nomination; stated the matter is placed on the agenda at the Mayors direction. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry regarding press releases noticing vacancies, the City Clerk stated the City Clerk's office puts out the press releases. Councilmember Oddie inquired if there were two vacancies, SSHRB and HAB, why was only one done immediately after the election and not the other, to which the City Clerk responded the SSHRB was considered more urgent. Councilmember Oddie inquired what is the next step for … | CityCouncil/2016-12-06.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-03-21.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2017-03-21 | 21 | The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 21, 2017 | CityCouncil/2017-03-21.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2017-04-07 | 21 | Mayor Spencer stated that she would be open to using General Fund money if her suggestion cannot be done. The City Manager stated the policy could be discussed when staff brings back the fee. Mayor Spencer stated Council also wanted to address the trust and the RRAC; inquired whether there is anything to be discussed. Vice Mayor Vella responded the Council should also discuss a model lease and the sunset provision. Trust Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated private realtors have discussed setting up at trust; she would like to keep the discussion open. In response to Councilmember Oddie, Councilmember Matarrese stated that he suggested using the property transfer tax as a revenue stream to provide seed money for the trust fund, safety net services or funding a mediator; he would like to lock down a funding stream first. In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the City Manager stated the suggestion could be discussed as part of the budget; mediator costs would be included as a line item when the program fee returns and Council could decide whether to include the amount in the program fee or the budget. Councilmember Matarrese expressed support for the City Manager's suggestion. Councilmember Oddie stated that he likes Councilmember Matarrese's idea and would like to pursue it. Mayor Spencer stated the Council supports the suggestion. RRAC Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the RRAC relies on volunteers with little training in mediation; turnover requires new members to be trained; the RRAC is tasked with making a decision regarding housing; only difficult cases end up at the RRAC since the Housing Authority staff or mediators settle the majority of the cases; suggested that the RRAC process be replaced with staff or a third-party mediator attempting to resolve the issue; stated if the attempts at resolution fail, cases that fit the criteria could go to a Hearing Officer for a binding decision, which gives the parties even more incentive to settle; the RRAC meetings cause discussions about personal matters, such as f… | CityCouncil/2017-04-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2017-04-18 | 21 | disservice to the Council and citizens; the chart was difficult to read; a better way to present the information to the public needs to be considered: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda. Stated the chart is missing a timeline; urged Council to work harder to engage the public: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda. Councilmember Matarrese stated once a referral is voted on it is no longer a referral; Council should be consistent; an estimate is needed as to when a referral would be done; the form needs to have a suggested priority level; suggested having the Eisenhower chart on the form; the understanding of referrals is that a Councilmember is not soliciting action other than to have Council agree before expending staff time. Councilmember Oddie stated including the Eisenhower chart on the form is appropriate; he is concerned that there is no schedule or timeline; the community would benefit from a schedule that is regularly updated; having a schedule gives more notice, is more transparent, and would be an effective planning tool. The City Manager outlined detail on the spreadsheet tracking referrals; including the Housing and Homeless, FAAS, and Zoning referrals. Vice Mayor Vella stated the original date of the referral is missing from the chart; suggested changing "next steps' to "projected timeline' and including the original referral direction date to keep track; stated having a suggested priority level is helpful; she hopes there is discussion about the reality of how much time the referrals are going to take; expanding upon the upcoming items list and making it public would be helpful. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft urged Council to give the new referral form a try; the form places focus on what the Councilmember is recommending and helps prioritize. Mayor Spencer stated that she does not like the form and it is not transparent; she prefers to make it clear to the public that Council may be able to take action that night or give direction; the tracker chart is not useable and has way too small print; the tracker chart needs a timeli… | CityCouncil/2017-04-18.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2017-05-16 | 21 | friendly amendments: to add the May 3, 2017 provision and the in depth analysis that Vice Mayor Vella suggested. The City Attorney inquired what the in depth analysis is pertaining to, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded there are numerous instances listed in the staff report that still need to be reviewed; she would also like a report back in one year; the data needs to be collected and a consultant hired to provide a report on the activity in one year. The City Manager stated data is not collected on just cause evictions. Councilmember Oddie stated he is fine with data being collected only for owner move- ins and withdrawing from the rental business. The City Attorney inquired whether the request for data collection is part of the ordinance or direction to staff. Vice Mayor Vella responded the request for data collection was previously made in the April meeting. The Community Development Director inquired whether Council is requesting a more robust study to assess and track changes in the rental market so that when the ordinance is set to sunset in 2019, there is more data showing the impact of the ordinance. Council concurred. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion. Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would agree with adding the exemption for in- law units. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the negative; inquired whether accessory units are included. The Assistant City Attorney responded a permitted accessory unity is considered part of a single-family residence and not subject to rent control provisions. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the accessory units are included for eviction protections, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated if the unit is a non-permitted second unit, the unit will be considered a duplex and be subject to the rent control provisions. Councilmember Oddie stated that he does not agree with the provision; Council was previously told the accessory units were included as a typo and were taken out. The Assistant City Attorney responded … | CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf |
CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2017-06-06 | 21 | Stated the purpose of relocation fees are for a tenant who has been forced out of a unit by a landlord; the way the ordinance is written is not where a tenant is being forced out; the ordinance violates the will of the voters; the landlords are returning the issue to the voters: Greg McConnell, Alameda Housing Providers Association (AHPA). Stated Measure L1 was passed by the voters by a large margin; adding the program fee to the business tax will make the difference a 500% increase; the relocation fees are too extreme; as a landlord, he feels he is being treated unfairly: Anthony Charvet. Stated rent control restrictions make it difficult for landlords; the program fee is very difficult to collect from the tenants: Daniel Lee. Stated just cause evictions make it difficult for landlords to evict problem tenants: Malcom Lee. Stated there are many repercussions from allowing just cause evictions: Barbara Rasmussen. Stated allowing just cause keeps people in the community; urged Council to pass the ordinance: Cheri Johansen, Alameda Progressives. Stated that he supports a referendum; the amendments will cause displacement and make it difficult for small landlords: Cross Creason. Stated Measure L is was passed by voters; voters feel they have been betrayed by Councilmembers: Ron Bain, AHPA. Urged Council not to approve the ordinance; expressed concerns with the program fee; stated the fee is actually a fine to landlords: Lester Cabral, Alameda. *** (17-356) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining agenda items: the joint meeting items and referrals. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the joint meeting items. Mayor Spencer moved approval of hearing all of the remaining items, which failed for a lack of second. Vice Mayor Vella seconded Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1. *** Expressed concerns with Council making amendments to the ordin… | CityCouncil/2017-06-06.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]) );